Conceptualizing Inclusive Learning and Development: A Framework towards Entrepreneurial Competency Practices for Sustainability

Abstract

This paper reviews the position of entrepreneurial competency practices for sustainability within the learning and development (L&D) narrative over the last three decades. In alignment with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, gaps within the context of entrepreneurial learning theories, learning delivery, and roles of interlocutors are addressed. The discourse unfolds the meaning and measurement attributes of entrepreneurial competencies, advocating for developing an inclusive framework within the entrepreneurial L&D space. Extant literature posits exclusivity in learning theories, learning delivery, and role of interlocutors as approaches to achieving Entrepreneurial Competencies (EC); however, scarcity in research adapting a dynamic and inclusive framework for amalgamating learning theories, learning delivery, and roles of interlocutors can impact entrepreneurial competency sustainability. This paper analyzes EC to achieve L&D sustainability, employing a mixed-method content analysis to develop a dynamic and inclusive framework encompassing learning theories, learning delivery, and roles of interlocutors. The paper concludes by establishing an Inclusive Framework of Entrepreneurial Competency Practices (IFECP) that bridges learning and development gaps, namely learning theories, learning delivery, and roles of interlocutors. The IFECP is aimed at assisting interlocutors and learners from nascent to mastery stages in ECs to embody the core values of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

1. Introduction

The emphasis of entrepreneurial learning and development (L&D) towards sustainable development is highly increasing in order to cater competent human capital as required by volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) contemporary globalization. The emergence of VUCA has urged people to be ready for any possibilities that are out of their comfort zones [1], including entrepreneurial education in a sustainable manner, as highlighted by the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [2].

In SDG 17 [3], Goal 4 aspires to obtain quality L&D to create sustainable development. Goal 8, concerning decent work and economic growth, strives for sustainable economic development [4]. Focusing further on Goals 8.3 and 8.6, the emphasis is to promote development-oriented policies that support entrepreneurship. These global goals are aimed to be achieved by 2030; they clearly show that the issue of entrepreneurial competency and sustainable L&D is contemporary and needs scientific intervention and innovation towards sustainable L&D practices.

Early initiatives for scientific intervention include the Brundtland Report [5], which posits that interlocutors play an essential role in effectuating extensive social changes that are required for sustainable development. The L&D system would subsequently face transformation that includes a participatory process in the area of civil society, including in businesses and public services [6]. Therefore, the L&D should no longer be interpreted solely from a pedagogical delivery standpoint. Such forms of L&D enable the process of reflection and action on entrepreneurial practices for sustainability [7]. This process of critical inquiry spurs the exploration of the complexity and implications of sustainability. This includes the economic, political, social, cultural, technological, and environmental forces that foster or impede sustainable development [6].

Numerous studies that attempted to understand the meaning of entrepreneurial competencies include studies on university students [8,9] and high school students [10,11] as the target critical groups. The use of sophisticated techniques in teaching is found to be a significant factor in developing entrepreneurial competencies among the high school and university students [11]. However, the use of various technology-related techniques in delivering entrepreneurial L&D towards sustainability remains unclear.

Pedagogy (directive learning), andragogy (self-directed learning), and heutagogy (self-determined learning) are several possibilities available for entrepreneurial L&D. Pedagogy techniques of delivery are dominant in L&D; however, in recent years, the importance of andragogy as a sustainable entrepreneurial L&D approach has been given attention [12,13,14], whilst heutagogy practices remain less explored.

Entrepreneurial competency (EC) has been examined from various perspectives over the years. Much of the empirical work found a strong association between entrepreneurial competency practices and business performance [14,15,16]. Branch-out studies examined the possible ways to create entrepreneurial competencies, with formal higher education shortlisted as a main pillar. Exemplary studies [17,18] of notable literature in this context are explained as follows. A holistic review of entrepreneurial L&D literature indicates the emergence of several main themes: (i) Types of entrepreneurial L&D [18,19], (ii) entrepreneurial L&D delivery approaches [18,19,20], and (iii) the factors influencing entrepreneurial L&D success [17]. Despite these examples, there is still limited research focusing on an inclusive L&D framework addressing competency practices for sustainability (CPS).

The need for a dynamic emergent inclusive framework to explain the usage of learning theories, learning delivery, and roles of interlocutors is crucial, as it provides a comprehensive approach towards L&D for entrepreneurial CPS. Thus, this paper aims to unveil the underlying meaning and measurement of the interplay between entrepreneurial competencies and L&D to suggest the best CPS, as well as to contribute to the theoretical gaps in learning theories, learning deliveries, and the roles of interlocutors.

The paper is presented as follows: Section 2 presents the methods used; Section 3 presents the conceptual framework and unveils meanings of entrepreneurial competences; Section 4 presents a measurement review of attributes of entrepreneurial competences; Section 5 provides a dynamic framework linking various L&D theories, approaches, and techniques; and Section 6 includes the summary discussion and potential applications for future CPS research using this dynamic framework.

2. Gaps to Entrepreneurial Competencies (EC) for Sustainability

The basis of effective entrepreneurial competencies (EC) for sustainability lies upon the appropriate use of learning theories, learning deliveries, roles of interlocutors, and an inclusive approach to L&D [21].

Learning Theories (LT) are an area of inquiry to understanding why and how people learn. These are the fundamentals for L&D and aid interlocutors in creating learning environments for learners to optimize their L&D experience. Learning Theories (LT) describe the ways learners assimilate knowledge, skills, and attitudes. In a broad perspective, there are four principles of LTs. These include the (i) cognitive, (ii) behaviorist, (iii) humanist, and (iv) constructivist principles.

Since the early 20th century, learning psychologists began to focus on cognitive learning theory, or how to shape behavior and beliefs. Cognitive learning is a mental process that includes the schematic development of understanding through induction, deduction, rule finding, law discovering, and pattern recognition [22]. The cognitive learner develops problem-solving skills that are transferred from one situation to another, placing the locus of control with the learner [23].

The behaviorist learner assumes that the environment influences and shapes the learning process [23]. The infrastructure of the behaviorist learner is dependent on the stimulus–response association (S-R), focusing on environmental stimuli that are objective, observable, and measurable [22]. These proponents have led to theories that use repetitions, rewards, and reinforcements as learning stimuli.

Hollis [24] says that the humanistic approach involves the total person rather than providing facts to memorize or absorb. This approach emphasizes the importance of the inner world of the leaner [25], and roots its foundations in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [26] and Rogers’ student-centered mode of thinking [27]. The humanistic approach relates to the motivation of learning [22]. The humanistic approach allows the learner to discover the qualities of what makes them unique to be a part of mankind [24].

The constructivist approach applies to both the learning theory and the philosophy, which is a directive for how one learns according to the nature of knowledge. The approach to L&D is based on the fact that learning is the result of ‘mental construction’, fitting what the learner knows into what they already know [28].

The learning delivery of pedagogy is derived from two words—‘paid’ meaning ‘child’ and ‘agogos’ meaning ‘leader’ [29]. According to Ozuah [29], pedagogy treats learners as directive-learners that do not know and could not know their own learning needs. The ‘blank slate’ or tabula rasa is the assumption for pedagogical learners, as prior experience is irrelevant. Therefore, an instructional curriculum is important for pedagogical learners. Andragogy derives from ‘andra’ and ‘agogos’, which means man-learning. This term, coined by Alexander Kapp [30], was the means to describe ‘an adult engaging in continuous learning’ by Plato’s philosophy [31]. The andragogical learner is self-directed and autonomous; learners take the initiative to diagnose their learning needs, formulate learning goals, identify all forms of resources, and choose and implement learning strategies and outcomes [32].

Heutagogy is a learning delivery that is rooted in the andragogical principles of self-determined learners [33]. The word ‘heut’ comes from the word ‘self’ in Greek, where learning occurs through personal experience, with the learner being the center of the process. The self-determined learner is the major agent in their own learning, which is derived from their personal experiences [34].

Pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy are three well-established learning delivery techniques that address different stages of the learner, ranging from directive learners, to self-directed, and to self-determined. These learning approaches are the underlying categorization of learners based on their needs, their motivational levels to learn, and their experience or lack of it. While most literature suggests about the progressive stages of a learner who moves from a pedagogical to an andragogical to a heutagogical stage, there is the problematization of understanding if these three types of learners exist in mutual exclusion or should they be situationally interchangeable.

2.1. The Teacher as a Coach and as an Interlocutor

O’Niel and Hopkins [35] defined coaching in a classroom as an environment conducive for students to increase their self-awareness and their capacity for discovery, while motivating them towards life-long learning and development at the same time. The sports analogy of ‘coaching’ is addressed in L&D through motivating and inspiring winning students. The difference between a coach and a traditional teacher who is structured, reductionist, and dominant [36] is that the coach in L&D has two main roles, namely that of a teacher as a transmitter of information and as a member of a dialogue or conversation [35]. Since the pedagogy method of L&D involves a directive learning approach, the coach’s role is to impart knowledge to the learners while demonstrating ways of doing things to people who are at the beginning of their learning journey [37].

Andragogy is a process used by learners to construct new learning based on previous understanding. This self-directed learning process enables the link between coaching and adult learning to take place. The natural affinity of an andragogical learner to coaching principles includes the (i) need to know, (ii) adults as self-directed learners, (iii) that adults have abundance of prior life and work experiences, (iv) that adults learn when they are ready and when they need to, (v) that adults are life-centered in their orientation to learning, and (vi) that adults can respond to external motivation [38]. The learner who is self-directed requires a coach who facilitates mutual inquiry using mutual and inductive learning processes while playing a role in collaborative learning to develop and reinforce the learner-centric experience [39].

The heutagogical learner who is self-determined takes the opportunity and responsibility for direct personal learning and engaging in knowledge creation and sustainability [40]. The learner, who is responsible for knowledge creation, also determines their learning experience mutually, which uses the capacity of coaches to be knowledge sharers rather than knowledge hoarders. This transforms the coach into an interlocutor, as there is a construct of perspective to achieve through what John Dewey would have called “a conjoint or shared undertaking” [41]. The role of an interlocutor in these L&D practices is to create learning opportunities while emphasizing socially-intensive and non-linear interactive L&D experiences.

2.2. Inclusive L&D

The contribution of learning theories and learning deliveries is to improve L&D and to generate meaningful learning experiences. However, sets of comprehensive learning theories and deliveries for L&D are very much fragmented and would need to be inclusive in order to provide the interlocutor with the opportunity to formulate a workable rationale for L&D. At present, the research argues that there is no single theory and learning delivery for L&D that posits for all types of learning environments and stages. The only alternative from a pragmatic standpoint is to understand how these theories and deliveries interact in a dynamic and inclusive manner in an agile L&D environment. The pedagogy–andragogy–heutagogy learning deliveries posit that the learning deliveries change with the learner as they progresses in their learning stages. By examining learning deliveries through critical theory, the three learning stages are not in isolation, nor should they be understood as changes that are separate and distinct from the learner’s learning stages. Instead, a holistic and inclusive interaction exists among the learning deliveries incorporated into the learner’s repertoire of knowledge as they develop. This dynamic triadic relationship among pedagogy–andragogy–heutagogy can happen at any stage of the learner’s L&D to be made meaningful to the learner by the context and activities through which is acquired. The problematization of the world of L&D is a comprehensive model where all indispensable elements involving learning theories, deliveries, and interlocutors are effectively integrated.

A comprehensive model can be achieved through a mixed-method content analysis through inductive and deductive reasoning to ensure inclusive L&D for sustainable practices. To further crystalize the gap between EC and L&D, a bibliometric analysis using VOSviewer is illustrated in Figure 1. The search on entrepreneurial competencies in SCOPUS TITLE-ABS-KEY (entrepreneurial AND competencies) showed 960 documents with related literature. Figure 1 shows the network visualization map generated based on bibliographic data of EC. It is evident that there is a literature gap between EC and L&D, as there is a lack of direct relationships to be found.

3. Methods

A content analysis method was used to establish the relationship between entrepreneurial competency practices and L&D for sustainability. A twofold analytical approach was implemented in this paper. The initial level unfolds the content manifestation of the text and documents. The subsequent level unfolds the underlying meaning of the content through interpretation of entrepreneurial competency practices and their relation to L&D for sustainability.

Content analysis is a technique that can be applied to systematically and objectively analyze published materials and communications [42,43,44,45]. This approach of analysis provides the researcher with an opportunity to understand the manifestation of certain patterns from extant literature, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to unfold underlying meaning through interpretation whilst supporting categorization with descriptive statistics [46,47,48].

A crucial feature in the mixed-method content analysis approach [48] is the ability to trace and verify the text corpus investigated. A four-step milestones [42,48] approach for mixed-method content analysis was employed in this paper: Step 1—Material Collection; Step 2—Descriptive Analysis; Step 3—Pattern of analytic categories, and Step 4—Material evaluation and research quality.

In the material collection stage (Step 1), the definition and scope of the entrepreneurial competencies and L&D for sustainability were decided for inclusion in this study. A keyword search encompassing the topic being studied was performed in the SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases.

As for the descriptive stage (Step 2) of this study, the text corpus, mainly journal articles across three decades since the early 1990s until the present, was included. The decision of the analytic category pattern (Step 3) was based on a two-phase stepwise approach [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. In the initial phase, the fundamental dimensions and categories within the context of entrepreneurial competencies and L&D for sustainability were derived through deduction. This was followed by an inductive phase where each category was refined and interpreted to unfold the meaning and measurement of the content and context of study.

The evaluation stage (Step 4) ensures that reliability and validity are addressed. Inter-coder reliability [50,51] was employed in this study, where cross-coding amongst authors was performed to establish the alignment of mental schemes of the topic studied. The validity of this study was addressed by ensuring explicitness [52] in performing the analysis, namely by incorporating thick description and reflexivity [53].

4. Meaning of Entrepreneurial Competencies

Many authors have studied entrepreneurial competencies (EC). There have been numerous and wide variations on the approaches of the study.

Table 1. Literature review on entrepreneurial competencies.

Topics Covered	Authors
a. Conceptualization and dimensions of entrepreneurial competencies	[14,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65]
b. Assessment and measurement of entrepreneurial competencies	[57,62,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75]
c. Entrepreneurial competency policies	[65,76,77,78]
d. Entrepreneurial competency and sustainability	[56,68,79,80,81,82]
e. Entrepreneurial competency approaches	[83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93]
f. Entrepreneurial competency delivery	[94,95,96,97,98,99]

proposes a regrouping of emerging themes between 1990s and the present from various authors.

4.1. Conceptualization and Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Competencies

Entrepreneurship is considered “a highly complex, socially created, procedural, and fluid phenomenon” respective to its specific cultural and social context [100]. Due to these complexities, the challenges of delivering the discipline will lead to unique pedagogies [101,102]. Entrepreneurial competencies refer to the specific group of competencies that are stipulated towards a successful entrepreneurship. Although there is a growing interest in the field of corporate entrepreneurship and intrapreneurship [14,58,59], successful entrepreneurship is often associated with the development of small and new businesses [60,103]. Entrepreneurial competencies consist of components that are ingrained in a person’s background (e.g., traits, personality, attitudes, social role, and self-image) along with capabilities that are established at work via learning and development (e.g., skills, knowledge, and experience) [104].

Scholars have defined competencies interchangeably with capabilities, resources [60], and skills [65]. Others view entrepreneurial competencies as the “ability to accomplish something by using a set of material and immaterial resources” [61].

In entrepreneurial competency development, the underlying concept that entrepreneurs can be made [62] implies that the dimensions of entrepreneurial competencies will include (i) self-efficacy, (ii) proactiveness, (iii) risk, and (iv) intention of self-employment [55].

Self-efficacy indicates the person’s belief that he or she has the ability to successfully perform the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship [63,64]. Proactiveness [65] is a competency important for performance and growth. An entrepreneur who is proactive has the tendency to initiate and identify opportunities, to act on them, and to persevere until they make significant change [54]. Taking risks [54], the willingness to take risks [65], and risk assumptions [105] are categorized into the ability to take on ambiguity and uncertain circumstances while making sound decisions and being able to control one’s own emotions. Intention of self-employment describes the intention to start a business on one’s own, as opposed to being employed by an organization [54], addressed in the fourth of the 17 SDGs.

According to the EntreComp, or the Entrepreneurship Competence Framework by the European Commission [106], the major areas of competencies include (i) ideas and opportunities, (ii) resources, and (iii) taking action.

The appreciation of the above brief concept and dimensions of EC can support the sustainable effort of learners’ development.

4.2. Assessment and Measurement of Entrepreneurial Competencies

Various methods of assessment and measurement of entrepreneurial competencies include self-efficacy assessment [71]. Reference [73] highlights a two-fold method that includes (i) that efficacy is a person’s competence based on the success of performing a particular action and (ii) estimation of the social system’s responsiveness toward that action.

Assessment of life-long learning competencies [72], including the European key competence for life-long learning, can be included as a framework to assess, validate, and certify entrepreneurial competencies. This method of assessment paves the way to turn ideas into action and to provide indicators to evaluate outcomes of entrepreneurial competencies.

Other instruments by scholars include the EPAI (Entrepreneurial Potential Assessment Inventory). Reference [73] indicates the potential and summative set of distinctive competencies and motivators in preparedness to become an entrepreneur. The Framework of Competitiveness [74] measures the competence approach of entrepreneurial characteristics, focusing centrally on the role of the entrepreneur as a determination of the organization’s performance. The works by [57] adapted the entrepreneurial competency framework enabling the measurement of entrepreneurial competencies in the workplace based on the original works of [75]. This framework is based on the foundation that entrepreneurial competencies are comprised of four main themes that can enhance lifelong learning and development and include (i) entrepreneurial competencies, (ii) business and management competencies, (iii) human relation competencies, and (iv) conceptual relation competencies.

4.3. Entrepreneurial Competency Policies

Entrepreneurial competencies are crucial in ensuring that entrepreneurial business ventures enjoy sustainable growth. The entrepreneurial ventures contribute to the formation of new firms and job creation, which are imperative for a country’s development [78]. Consequently, the policymakers need to employ locally or regionally oriented incentives to prompt further investments of the analytical investors.

The EntreComp, or the Entrepreneurship Competence Framework by the European Commission [106], has one of the key objectives in the European Union and Member States as the rise in awareness that entrepreneurial competencies, knowledge, and attitudes can be nurtured and can benefit the widespread development of an entrepreneurial mindset and culture, benefiting the society and nation as a whole.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) [107] is in conformity with the United Nations’ practice that advocates for improvement of entrepreneurial activities through government policies. The recommendations made by the ILO include stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship through L&D. These standards also include recommendations for providing skills training, entrepreneurship learning and development programs, and coaching and scholarships for more disadvantaged sections of society.

4.4. Entrepreneurial Competency and Sustainability

Sustainability, which also refers to the concern for long-term viability, covers three main dimensions, which are economic, social, and environmental [108]. Sustainable entrepreneurial competence requires the knowledge of sustainable entrepreneurship by realizing the importance of sustainable innovations where society and business benefit interactively [80]. The entrepreneurial competence needs to recognize the nature of sustainable entrepreneurship, which includes the key success factors of business companies and the elements of sustainable entrepreneurship.

Other scholars claim that entrepreneurial action not only impacts economically, but also conserves from an environmental standpoint, such as through ecosystem preservation, reduction of climate change deforestation, and improved farming and agriculture practices [81,82]. In this discourse, the authors unveiled that the greater the entrepreneur’s knowledge in a natural and communal environment, the higher the likelihood of opportunity recognition for sustainable development will be. The entrepreneurial competencies towards sustainability keep their abilities to administrate the natural environment by assuring adequate living conditions for future generations [82].

4.5. Entrepreneurial Competency Theories

4.5.1. Behaviorist

The initial behaviorist research advocates that learners can be trained towards consistent behavior by controlling the external stimuli or environment [85]. The underpinning claim of such behaviorism is that behavior can be shaped and influenced by the external environment, and not in the mind only. Another underpinning claim is that positive and negative stimuli reinforce and encourage learning processes. Hence, behaviorist approaches can be characterized by repetitive, generalized, and discriminative activities for learners’ learning processes [86,87]. Skills are often acquired through consistent and varied practices. Rewards, successes, and achievements are preferred positive drivers for learning, as opposed to punishment and failure [88]. Having a clear purpose and objectives helps learners to be focused, and learning activities can be designed to be aligned to meet expected outcomes.

In short, a replicable consistent behavioral practice can enhance learning and development approaches with effective stimulus–response mechanisms. The external findings based on rational facts, data, and observations, excluding internal mental processes, can assist behaviorist learning initiatives towards long-term continuity.

4.5.2. Constructivist

The constructivist’s perspective is that knowledge is learned by the learners rather than drawing from experts as sole transmitters of knowledge and know-how. John Dewey believes that learners’ prior ideas, experiences, and beliefs are central and not to be dismissed as a part of a learner’s learning process [109]. Lev Vygotsky, another constructivist, advocated for learning as a social engagement that gives meanings and understandings from collaborative interactions [110]. Learners are dynamically and creatively exposed to new experiences; they analyze and look out for inconsistencies, pursue meanings, and relearn their knowledge accordingly. Constructivists are often coaches who facilitates learning and create opportunities for learners to self-build and solve complex problems. Constructivism views learning as dynamic; learners are encouraged to self-direct and take ownership of their learning pathway. The role of a constructivist is to facilitate or guide learning processes with meaningful activities, to avoid being the “sage on the stage”, and to act as a “guide on the side” [111]. Sufficient time is required to actively build learners’ knowledge through reflective interventions of new experiences and the relationship of prior understandings and preconceptions. Constructivist learning is a social process with interactive collaboration to generate and integrate information [89]. Traditional learning theories often examine the level of directed guidance provided by interlocutors [90,91]. It is observed that controlled and directed guidance of learners, as in traditional learning, may not be well accepted by current sophisticated learners. Constructivist approaches, however, believe that interlocutors can identify the learners’ thoughts and value ideas through dialogic interaction and review. Hence, constructivist education builds mental schema and patterns through collaborative engagement. This dynamic social interactive learning gives meaningful insights. Knowledge is built on, through, and from experiences with facilitated group discussion and ample self-reflections for continued learning.

4.5.3. Cognitive

The “cognitive revolution” had a strong belief that learners are born with a blank slate and that knowledge comes from experiences or mental perceptions [112]. Hence, discounting that ideas and thinking play a critical role in learning and development can be detrimental. Cognitivist interlocutors propose that the human mind processes information similarly to a computer with inputs and outputs [85]. Information is received, analyzed, transformed, integrated, and later stored in symbolic mental programming. A cognitivist interlocutor’s strength is the accurate delivery and impartation of knowledge from an expert to learners. This allows the learning process to occur, with learners having to build and upgrade the same mental constructs as those of the expert interlocutors [85].

Cognitivist interlocutors design learning structures and knowledge mapping in accordance to experts’ advice and allow learners to mentally construct the intended results [92]. The extent of interlocutor–learner knowledge co-creation enables the measurement of learning outcomes. Hence, gathering information with analytical insights helps internal learning processes through introspection and conceptual thinking. The important point to note is that acquisition of knowledge through mental programming and knowing can be transferred to another learner without them experiencing or acting on the knowledge.

4.5.4. Humanist

Humanist interlocutors focus on individuals as human beings with an ability to make positive decisions for oneself and society. Self-awareness, motivation, and intuitive feelings must be considered in an inclusive learning process. Humanist interlocutors believe that individuals should be viewed as a whole, and allow them to have personal freedom and space to explore, grow, and exercise personal dignity. Humanist interlocutors play the roles of facilitators or coaches to give learners emotional support and opportunities to have continued learning experiences with self-reflection. This will help them become self-directed and, ultimately, self-learned [85].

The stimulus to learn is found internally within the learner. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs states that only when learners have satisfied their lowest needs can they move up to the next level to eventually self-actualize [26]. Learning has both affective and cognitive needs, which allow the learning of self-initiated and autonomous individuals [93,113]. Self-determination theory states that learners seek autonomy, mastery, and purpose to develop a growth mind-set with internal energy and sustainable drive [113].

4.6. Entrepreneurial Competency Delivery—Pedagogy (P), Andragogy (A), and Heutagogy (H)

Pedagogy is instructional learning or directive coaching that concentrates on the content and programming of knowledge rather than the learning itself [94,95]. The L&D perspective requires a redefinition of the roles of interlocutors where it requires greater involvement in contributing activities towards entrepreneurial competency development for sustainability through performance and idea generation [96].

Andragogy is self-directed education with learners having control and self-ownership of learning. Learners define their goals and objectives and use a problem-solving approach to learn [97]. Learners often actively participate in identifying their own needs and goals, and work toward their expected outcomes [98,99]. An andragogical educator’s role uses a coaching and problem-solving approach to assist learners in developing their entrepreneurial competencies and mindset shift with real-world situations [98].

Heutagogy is self-determined education that allows a learner-centered approach to learning, and is not an alternative or a replacement for pedagogy or andragogy [114]. Heutagogical learning experiences are paced by learners themselves, creating conducive learning environments [115]. Heutagogical learners determine what they want to learn, which is done in a collaborative manner with peers and educators, focusing on learners’ personal exploration.

5. Measurement of Entrepreneurial Competencies (EC)

Table 2. Learning theories in measuring entrepreneurial competency (EC).

Main Continuum	Cognitive Competencies							Non-Cognitive Competencies
Theoretical Themes	Cognitive			Behaviorist				Humanist
Attributes	Problem Solving	Baseline Knowledge	Personal Fit	Opportunity Recognition	Interpersonal	Risk Management	Leadership Skills	Resource Leverage	Conveying a Compelling Vision	Passion	Resilient	Innovativeness	Self-Efficacy	Tenacity (Perseverance)
Authors
Krueger and Brazeal (1994) [116]		√	√	√		√	√	√			√	√	√
Leitch and Harrison (1999) [117]	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
Man, Lau, and Chan (2002) [56]	√			√	√			√	√					√
Mojab, Zaefarian, and Azizi (2011) [118]	√	√	√	√	√	√					√	√
Sánchez (2011) [54]		√	√			√	√	√	√			√	√	√
Bagheri and Pihie (2011) [119]	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√	√			√
Sánchez (2013) [120]		√	√	√		√	√	√	√	√		√	√
Cardon, Gregoire, Stevens, and Patel (2013) [121]	√	√	√	√				√		√		√	√
Rezaei-Zadeh, Hogan, O’Reilly, Cleary, and Murphy (2014) [122]	√		√	√	√	√	√	√	√		√	√	√
Jena and Kumar Sahoo (2014) [123]	√	√	√	√	√		√		√
Lackéus and Middleton (2015) [124]	√	√	√	√	√			√				√
Kyndt and Baert (2015) [68]	√	√	√	√	√				√			√	√	√
Gümüsay and Bohné (2018) [125]	√		√	√	√		√	√				√	√
Stroe, Parida, and Wincent (2018) [126]		√	√	√	√	√		√	√	√		√	√
Newman, Obschonka, Schwarz, Cohen, and Nielsen (2019) [127]		√	√	√		√	√	√		√	√	√	√
Bellini, Favretto, Noveta, Gianesini, Ciabuschi, Leitao and Jain (2019) [128]		√	√		√		√	√	√		√	√

provides further insights into entrepreneurial competency attributes. The table categorizes a selection of 15 studies over the last three decades based on a cognitive and non-cognitive continuum. The authors’ names are presented chronologically as an overview of the attributes of EC. This is further categorized into three theoretical themes: Cognitive, skills (behaviorist), and attitudes (humanist).

A content analysis—as presented by the table below—indicates the frequency of EC attributes being addressed by various authors. The years chosen were between 1990 and 2020 to capture LTs that move through learning delivery (LD) trends over three decades. In the early 1990s, L&D was more focused on the pedagogical approach. The popularity of the MBA and other post-graduate courses by subject in the early 2000s saw the trends of andragogical approaches taking over pedagogical approaches. However, the last decade has shown that coaching is a notable trend, as newer generations of learners are inclined towards self-directed learning where information is almost instantly obtained on the internet. The inclusion of at least three generations of delivery approaches is seen in Table 2. In general, the authors had preferences towards skill attributes—indicated by 63 marked ticks—and cognitive attributes—indicated by 36 marked ticks—for EC development. Attitude attributes had been marked less, with 32 ticks. This is indicative that the important skill attributes are action-orientated, with interpersonal behaviors, risk management, leadership skills, opportunity recognition, resource leverage, and compelling vision in learning and developing entrepreneurial competencies.

A noteworthy observation of Table 2 indicates the ambiguity of the constructivist view of the theoretical theme, as the constructivist view posits that knowledge cannot be passed from one person to another [129]. The gap within the categories presented in Table 2 is a priori centric, befitting the three theoretical themes of cognition, skills, and attitudes. This paper challenges the status quo of the existing theoretical themes by incorporating an a posteriori approach. To bridge this gap, critical theory is proposed to converge both the a priori and a posteriori learning theories, allowing dynamic interaction to enhance learning delivery for learners and educators.

6. An Inclusive L&D Framework of Entrepreneurial Competency Practices (IFECP) for Sustainability

The unfolding the meaning and measurement of ECs as mentioned above suggests a need for a dynamic and inclusive L&D framework. This will help the acceptance and understanding of competent learners in developing an entrepreneurial mindset for sustainability. Learning and education are interchangeably used as an approach to develop and grow entrepreneurial competencies (ECs) towards sustainability. This inclusive framework is anchored in SDG 4.4, which emphasizes entrepreneurial skills among youth and adults in the transformational need for inclusive and equitable life-long learning by bridging the fragmentation of LT and LD through the role of the interlocutor. This interplay further enhances Goal 8.3 of the SDG, which promotes development-oriented policies to support entrepreneurial growth by inculcating new generations of holistic learners, in turn addressing Goal 8.6, which drives towards reducing unemployment through education and training among youth. Numerous endeavors have been carried out to associate ECs with learning delivery, namely through the pedagogical, andragogical, and heutagogical learning delivery styles [130,131].

A dynamic and inclusive framework identifies various learning theories (LT), learning deliveries (LD), and roles of interlocutors (RoI) to effectively nurture entrepreneurial competencies. This leads to the innate self-reflective question for change of “What difference can I make?”. The LTs help learners characterize their own learning preferences or combinations of preferences for behaviorist, cognitivist, humanistic, or constructivist approaches to realizing EC development and acquiring a growth mindset [132]. This dynamic inclusive framework can indeed support the learner’s transformative learning behavior change with a stronger self-efficacy of a sustainable mindset over time.

In an attempt to develop EC, the role of the behaviorist, cognitivist, humanistic, and constructivist LTs described in Section 4 is to support life-long learning for sustainability. The preferences of learners for acquiring skills and programmed knowledge can differ, leading to a proposition of an adaptable and yet agile approach to learning delivery through pedagogy (P), andragogy (A), or heutagogy (H). Critical theory helps to negotiate learning theories by challenging the status quo of learning. A possible combination of the aforementioned theories will require critical theorists to help calibrate an acceptable learning delivery.

Critical theory in education shapes learners’ beliefs, preconceptions, and actions. Self-reflective engagement with critical thinking and emancipation allow learners to challenge processes and systems in place [133]. Empowering learners by allowing them to critically reflect upon and challenge assumptions can change behaviors that have been taken for granted or had been relatively passive. This helps learners feel empowered to seek a different meaning and create a different value, which can be accepted or rejected in situations of inequality or perceived oppression.

To educate learners in the linear manner of traditional pedagogy does not produce skills and knowledge that will enable individuals to better prepare themselves for the challenges of contemporary life. Deweyean education focuses on problem solving, goal-oriented initiatives, and encouraging endeavors to help build programmed knowledge and experiences [134]. Active learning with flexible and adaptive approaches helps in a transformational mindset shift and behavioral changes in developing ECs for sustainability. The emancipation and freedom from constraints and restrictive parameters give rise to learning opportunities and development, and increase the value by making a difference [93]. The understanding of learning theories in the earlier section can help with the appreciation of the learning delivery styles of pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy (P-A-H), as presented in

Table 3. Learning theories, deliveries, and roles of interlocutors in entrepreneurial learning and development.

Learning Theories
Learning Delivery	Pedagogy	Andragogy	Heutagogy
Role of Interlocutors	Designing the learning process, imposing the material; educators are assumed to know best	Enabler or facilitator, collaborative climate, respectful and openness	Develop learners’ capabilities. -Knowing how to learn, being creative, self-efficacy, skill application, collaborative

below. This can help interlocutors to play their role, to design and align learning initiatives with learners’ preferences, and to apply a variety of appropriate delivery styles for sustainable education.

The choice of the learning delivery of P-A-H will be dependent on learners’ preferences. The learners’ pedagogical expectations towards determining the ‘what’ and ‘how’ should be learned from the interlocutor’s assessments. The upskilling and downloading of content, skill development, and program knowledge are led by interlocutors. The learners’ andragogical dependency is autonomous and self-directed. The heutogogical dependency of learners is more interdependent with peers and interlocutors, creating a collaborative and social co-creative environment for self-deterministic learning. Learners can identify potential novel experiences and ideas that have the affinity for self-managing their own learning through idea generation [135].

In addition to the roles of interlocutors stated in Table 3, another expected role of interlocutors in pedagogy is to motivate external sources [136]—for instance, parents and teachers of young learners—creating a sense of competition. The learning is subject-centered, focusing on prescribed curricula and planned logical sequences. The role of interlocutors with an andragogical learning delivery often facilitates the internal motivation of self-esteem, confidence, and recognition of performance. The learners’ learning is through doing a task and is problem-centered; they experience a need to know or to perform more effectively. The role of interlocutors in heutagogy is to encourage self-efficacy, learning how to learn and know, being creative, and creating novel and familiar situations for others. Learning goes beyond problem solving by enabling pro-activeness. Learners are encouraged to use their own experiences and internal reflection and to collaborate to co-create with fellow learners.

7. An Inclusive Framework of Entrepreneurial Competency (IFECP)

Figure 2 shows the interactive relationship of the four learning theories at the respective X and Y axes. The critical theory on the Z-axis plane shows how it can adaptively calibrate other learning theories of the other axes. The assumption that being in one of the learning theory quadrants will be effective to help develop EC, although extant literatures have been leaning towards advocating certain theories exclusively, namely, behaviorist theory.

Upon reflection and unfolding the meaning and measurement of entrepreneurial competency, can entrepreneurial competency practice (ECP) for sustainability be achieved if one were to only operate and remain exclusively in a singular theoretical quadrant? This can indeed be a major challenge and, hence, the critical theory (on the Z-axis) is used to challenge and calibrate the other theoretical approaches. Alternatively, the IFECP will provide a possible shared interplay of learning delivery styles, represented by the differently sized and colored circles of pedagogy, andragogy, and heutagogy (P-A-H), to address this gap. The preferences of learning delivery in each quadrant are depicted by the colored circles. The larger the circle’s size, the stronger involvement and influence it has on the learning delivery styles. The quadrant between the cognitivist and constructivist approaches has a “flash” surrounding the P-A-H circles, which indicates that any of the learning delivery styles could potentially temporarily occur. The roles of interlocutors, such as coaches, facilitators, advisors, and educator-orientated assessors, can assist learners to effectively nurture EC with their preferences for skill acquisition, knowledge, and experiential learning for sustainable development.

Contextualizing this concept, the findings from Table 2 indicate that the behaviorist and cognitivist approaches were the dominant LTs for EC. The quadrant between the behaviorist and cognitivist approaches has the LD of using a pedagogical approach. The RoI in this quadrant is that of a teacher and directive interlocutor, and is educator-centric. The opposing quadrant between the humanist and constructivist axes has the LD of using a heutogogical approach. In this quadrant, the RoI is that of a coach, and is self-determined and learner-centric.

The behavorist and cognitivist theories lean towards a priori reasoning, whereas the humanist and constructivist theories are inclined towards a posteriori reasoning. To exclusively remain on a singular axis limits flexibility, agility, and dynamism in achieving an ECP. In order to address this gap, the IFECP proposes the Z-axis, introducing critical theory, which challenges the status quo, remaining on a singular axis. The risk of remaining on a singular axis stifles the learners’ and interlocutors’ capacities and capabilities in a naturally heterogeneous learning ecosystem. The proposed IFECP allows the learners and interlocutors to work in the contexts of their respective learning ecosystems.

8. Conclusions

The aim of this paper was led by the identification of gaps in Section 2, i.e., the formulation of an inclusive framework that has the potential to generate a meaningful learning experience. Literature on L&D has identified that dependence on a single learning theory and learning delivery may result in ineffective outcomes in different types of learning environments and stages. It is imperative to address the gaps of institutionalized and fragmented tactics in applying (i) learning theories (LT), (ii) learning deliveries (LD), and (iii) roles of interlocutors (RoI). Entrepreneurial Competency Practices for sustainability can be achieved when the inclusivity of LT–LD–RoI is embraced. This contribution to the body of knowledge of literature on sustainability aims to include IFECP as a comprehensive model that integrates all indispensable elements of learning theories, deliveries, and interlocutors. The extant literature on entrepreneurial competencies is indicative of efforts to address sustainability. However, the emphasis has been on addressing LT–LD–RoI separately.

The authors of this paper, hence, embarked upon analyzing entrepreneurial competency to achieve sustainability by employing a mixed-method content analysis. The emergent IFECP paves the way to achieve sustainability in L&D, namely, entrepreneurial competency (EC), through the interwoven connectivity established amongst LT–LD–RoI. The authors envisage this IFECP to assist the growth mindset of stakeholders in the L&D fraternity to achieve sustainability. The limitation of this research lies within the readiness of the national education policy and interlocutors to engage in a shift in L&D approaches. Change within the system is inevitable; with that, considerations must be made to address potential resistance.

Taking into consideration the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) landscape of global economic growth, future leaders who are currently occupying the millennial and post-millennial cohort require this IFECP to unfold sustainable entrepreneurial competencies from their respective lenses.

Future research should use this IFECP to test its trustworthiness in other geographical locations as well as in diverse disciplines. The IFECP is a comprehensive conceptual framework on entrepreneurial competencies that can be further studied through an operational framework. To investigate the effectiveness of the IFECP, the framework should be put to test in diverse settings that include teachers, training colleges, or other training programs, such as the Train the Trainer (TTT) program. The authors envisage that the implication of IFECP has the potential to be applied across all stages and ages of learning and development to achieve education for sustainable development.