Entrepreneurial education for migrant populations often prioritizes technical-business content and overlooks the experiential, relational and contextual learning embedded in migratory trajectories. This article presents the development and initial content assessment of MELT, Migration-Embedded Learning for Entrepreneurship, a pedagogical framework that translates potentially relevant migration experiences into explicit, critical, assessable and transferable entrepreneurial competencies. MELT does not assume that migration automatically produces entrepreneurial capacity; rather, it argues that experiences of adaptation, decision-making under uncertainty, resource recombination, institutional navigation, network activation and intercultural opportunity recognition can acquire pedagogical value when critically reconstructed within broader structural conditions. Using a convergent mixed design, a multi-stakeholder expert panel of 12 participants with academic, professional and experiential knowledge assessed the model's relevance, conceptual coherence, pedagogical applicability, evaluability, ethical and intercultural sensitivity, institutional feasibility, clarity and usefulness; open-ended responses were analyzed thematically and integrated with the quantitative results to revise the framework. The panel gave a favorable initial assessment, particularly for relevance, coherence, applicability and evaluability, while identifying the need for greater operational concreteness, facilitator training, evaluation rubrics, ethical safeguards, institutional support and non-prescriptive itineraries. The revised model adds a preparatory phase (socio-occupational diagnosis, willingness and suitability) to five pedagogical phases: trajectory mapping, critical reconstruction of learning, competence translation, low-risk situated experimentation, and evaluation and transfer through portfolio. MELT offers a promising pedagogical architecture for inclusive entrepreneurial education with migrants, though future pilot studies should test its feasibility, acceptability, ethical safety and formative effects in real training contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Paiva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: