Within the last 10 years Higher Education have witnessed an enhanced interest in educational activities described as entrepreneurial or innovative pedagogy (Fayolle and Gailly 2012; Kirketerp and Greve 2011; Rae and Wang 2015). On one hand, entrepreneurial or innovative pedagogy seems to introduce a new educational discourse, especially in humanities whereas concepts as innovation and entrepreneurial behavior seem well established in relation to business studies. On the other hand, the teaching methods used in entrepreneurial and/or innovative pedagogy resemble a revival of active learning theory/ action-based teaching (Handlungsorientiert Unterrichts), know from for instance progressive pedagogy. Some of the key characteristics are project-organization, problem-solving, product-orientation, student-driven and “real-life” problems (Keiding and Wiberg 2013). In educational theory, the action-based teaching had its golden age around 1920’ies, where it was a key concept in progressive pedagogy (Myhre 1971; Röhrs and Lenhart 1995). It had a short revival in the 1970’ies in the form of critical pedagogy (Freire 1973; Illeris 1981; Ziehe and Stubenrauch 1984).

The aim of the research is to subject progressive, critical and entrepreneurial pedagogy to a didactic inquiry based on the specific application of action-based teaching in order to answer two fundamental didactic questions: What educational purpose does the use of action-based teaching serve?  How does the educational purpose affect the specific form of the constituting elements of the method?

The analytical framework is found in systems theory as described by the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann and in educational theory on action-based teaching (Handlungsorientiert Unterrichts), especially the project method.

Luhmann describes the education system as a subsystem in society, differentiated around the function to provide members of society with knowledge, which, on one hand, is considered valuable and, on the other hand, cannot be expected to be acquired by mere participation in everyday life (Luhmann 2002a: 111). Hence, the intention to provide better knowledge and the derived distinction between better and worse knowledge is fundamental to the education system (Luhmann 2002a: 143).  Asking to the function of a system or – in this case the project method – directs our attention towards the better knowledge intended as an outcome of the use of a specific method. Hence, the functional analysis enables us to observe how action-based teaching over time has been used to meet different educational intentions/purposes.

The notion of form is linked to the concept of observations as handling of differences (Luhmann 2002b). The idea is that the specific form of a phenomenon – in this case, the constituting elements of action-based teaching - is a product of how it is observed in a specific context, and that deconstruction of the differences used to describe the phenomenon allows for a more complex understanding of the phenomenon (Keiding 2010; Luhmann 1986).

The concept of functional differentiation and form analysis has previously been used challenge two fundamental ideas in progressive education: That education can deal with real-life problems and that teaching must take its point of departure the child-as-a-whole. The conclusion was that teaching cannot deal with real-life problems, because the function of the activities related to a specific problem differs across systems. In the education system the function of dealing with for instance environmental problem is to educate, whereas the function in for instance the political system is to make collectively binding decisions to avoid environmental hazards. Correspondingly, the child gains form as student in the education system, an quite different forms  in other systems (e.g. sibling, son, inner wing) (Keiding 2007). 

Bastian, J., Gudjons, H., Schnack, J., and Speth, M. (1997). "Theorie des Projektunterrichts". City: Bergmann+Helbig: Hamburg. Fayolle, A., and Gailly, B. (2012). "From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in entrepreneurship education." IEEE Engineering Management Review, 40(2), 95. Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness, New York: Seabury Press. Frey, K. (1984). Die Projektmethode, Weinheim: Beltz. Gudjons, H. (2008). Handlungsorientiert Lehren und Lernen. Schüleraktivierung, Selbsttätigkeit, Projektarbeit, Bad Heilbrunn: Julius Klinkhardt. Illeris, K. (1981). Modkvalificeringens pædagogik. Problemorientering, deltagerstyring og eksemplarisk indlæring., København: Unge Pædagoger. Keiding, T. B. (2007). "Luhmann og reformpædagogik : - om at afskrive eller genbeskrive reformpædagogikkens grundsatser", in L. Qvortrup and M. Paulsen, (eds.), Luhmann og dannelse. København: Unge Pædagoger. Keiding, T. B. (2008). "Projektmetoden - en systemteoretisk genbeskrivelse." Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift, 3(5), 22-29. Keiding, T. B. (2010). "Observing Participating Observation - A Redescription Based on Systems Theory"Forum: Qualitative Social Research. City, pp. Art 11. Keiding, T. B., and Wiberg, M. (2013). "Handlingsorienteret didaktik", in A. Qvortrup and M. Wiberg, (eds.), Læringsteori og didaktik. København: Hans Reitzel, pp. 332-352. Kirketerp, A., and Greve, L. (2011). "Entreprenørskabsundervisning". City: Aarhus Universitetsforlag: Aarhus, pp. 296. Knudsen, M. (2010). "Surprised by Method - Functional Method and Systems Theory." Forum: Qualitative Social Resaerch 11(3), Art. 12. Luhmann, N. (1986). "Systeme verstehen Systeme", in N. Luhmann and K. E. Schorr, (eds.), Zwischen Intransparenz und Verstehen. Fragen an die Pädagogik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, pp. 72-117. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems, Standford: Standford University Press. Luhmann, N. (2002a). Das Erziehungssystem der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Luhmann, N. (2002b). "Deconstruction as Second-Order Observing", in W. Rasch, (ed.), Theories of Distinction. Redescribing the Descriptions of Modernity. Standford: Standford University Press, pp. 94-112. Myhre, R. (1971). "Store pedagoger i egne skifter. V. Europeisk reformpedagogikk i det 20. århundre". City: Fabritius: Oslo. Rae, D., and Wang, C., L Wang. (2015). "Entrepreneurial Learning. New Perspectives in Research, Education and Practice"Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship. City: Routledge. Röhrs, H., and Lenhart, V. (1995). "Progressive Education Across the Continents", H. Röhrs and V. Lenhart, (eds.), Heidelberger Studien zur Erziehungswissenschaft. City: Peter Lang: Frankfurt am Main. Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). Laws of Forms, London: George Allen and Unwin. Ziehe, T., and Stubenrauch, H. (1984). Ny ungdom og usædvanlige læreprocesser : kulturel frisættelse og subjektivitet, Kbh.: Politisk Revy. Åkerstrøm Andersen, N. (2003). Discursive analytical strategies: understanding Foucault, Koselleck, Laclau, Luhmann, Bristol: Policy Press.