Dilson Tgs KWU Minggu 06

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI PADANG
FAKULTAS TEKNOLOGI PENDIDIKAN & KEJURUAN
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
REVIEW TUGAS
MATAKULIAH
KEWIRAUSAHAAN Semester III TA 2018/2019
DOSEN : Prof. Dr. Ganefri, MT - Dra. Asmar Yulastri, M.Pd.,Ph.D
06 Oleh :
DILSON - 17193034
Tugas Review Jurnal Internasional – Enterpreneurship | Dilson - 17193034
LITERATUR REVIEW
ENTERPRENEURSHIP INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
21 Type : Journal
Title : ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL
SCIENCES:
ARE STUDENTS QUALIFIED TO START A BUSINESS
Authors & : Jose Luis Vazquez-Burgete1, Ana Lanero2, Agota Giedre Raisiene3, Maria
Department Purificacion Garcia4
1, 2, 4 University of Leon, Campus de Veganzana s/n, 24071 Leon, Spain
3Mykolas Romeris University, Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania
E-mails: 1jose-luis.vazquez@unileon.es; 2ana.lanero@unileon.es
(corresponding author);
3agotar@mruni.eu; 4mpgarm@unileon.es
Journal : Verslas: Teorija ir praktika
Business: Theory and Practice
Issn 1648-0627 print / Issn 1822-4202 online
2012 13(1): 27–35
doi:10.3846/btp.2012.03
Ringkasan :
Kurangnya pendidikan kewirausahaan di universitas-universitas Spanyol adalah karena banyak

faktor yang mempengaruhi sebagian besar lembaga pendidikan tinggi di negara-negara Eropa,
terutama kekurangan sumber daya manusia dan keuangan yang tersedia untuk semacam
pengejaran, struktur organisasi yang kaku dari institusi pendidikan tinggi, tradisi multidisiplin yang
buruk dalam organisasi program akademik, dan rendahnya motivasi dan pelatihan staf akademik
dalam masalah kewirausahaan (EIDG 2008a, 2008b). Dalam hal ini, secara tradisional diasumsikan
bahwa tingkat pendidikan yang diperoleh harus memenuhi syarat mahasiswa untuk mempraktikkan
aktivitas profesional, yang pada gilirannya harus memenuhi tuntutan modal manusia yang
dibutuhkan oleh sektor produktif, untuk berkontribusi pada kesejahteraan sosial-ekonomi. Untuk
menutup kesenjangan antara pengetahuan yang diperoleh siswa dan kebutuhan pasar tenaga kerja,
dan memberikan cakupan penuh kebutuhan semua pengguna universitas dan, dengan ekstensi,
masyarakat, kewirausahaan dapat dilihat sebagai pilihan yang menjanjikan untuk penyisipan kerja
dan pengembangan profesional lulusan universitas baru-baru ini, untuk melayani tujuan yang lebih
luas dari kesejahteraan sosio-ekonomi yang berkelanjutan. Pada artikel ini penulis mengkaji konsep
kompetensi kewirausahaan dan menggunakannya untuk menganalisis perbedaan dalam pendidikan
kewirausahaan di berbagai disiplin ilmu Sosial dan Humaniora. Langkah yang dilakukan penulis
adalah meninjau panduan yang ditandai oleh kebijakan umum Eropa sehubungan dengan masuknya
pendidikan kewirausahaan sebagai bagian dari misi akademis universitas dan memberikan
gambaran global tentang keadaan saat ini dalam lembaga pendidikan tinggi Eropa dan Spanyol,
kajian literatur sebelumnya tentang pendidikan kewirausahaan dan menentukan konstruk
kompetensi kewirausahaan dalam hal pengetahuan, keterampilan, dan sikap khusus. Penelitian
dilakukan di dua universitas Spanyol dengan menyebarkan kuisioner kepada 448 mahasiswa dipilih
secara car (random sampling). Berdasarkan jenis kelamin, sampel ini terdiri dari 337 perempuan
(75,2%) dan 111 laki-laki (24,8%), berusia 20 hingga 47 tahun (M = 23,10, DT = 2,95). Di sisi lain,
21,7% responden menunjukkan latar belakang akademis utama di bidang Bisnis, 21,9% dalam
Administrasi Publik dan Hukum, 40,8% dalam Ilmu Pengetahuan Manusia, dan 15,6% dalam
Humaniora
Variabel yang diukur adalah pengetahuan kewirausahaan, keterampilan dan sikap, menggunakan
skala Likert yang terdiri dari sebelas poin dari 0 ("tidak penting sama sekali") sampai 10 ("sangat
penting"). Alat bantu yang digunakan dalam analisis data adalah SPSS
untuk menganalisis tiga faktor yang sebelumnya diidentifikasi sebagai pembeda kelompok
mahasiswa sarjana dengan pengalaman belajar kewirausahaan, menggunakan Analisis Multivariat
Varians (MANOVA) dengan latar belakang akademis sebagai variabel independen dikategorikan
dalam empat kelompok Ilmu Bisnis, Administrasi Publik dan Hukum, Ilmu Pengetahuan Manusia,
dan Humaniora. Hasil penelitian mendukung perbedaan antara tiga komponen yang dicakup oleh
pengajaran formal kewirausahaan yang dirasakan oleh siswa, dalam hal pengetahuan, keterampilan
dan sikap yang ditentukan dalam Kerangka Eropa tentang Kompetensi Utama untuk Pembelajaran
Seumur Hidup (Rekomendasi 2006). Menurut perbedaan itu, iklim perubahan yang mencirikan
pembentukan program gelar baru saat ini yang disesuaikan dengan EHEA menawarkan kesempatan
yang sangat baik untuk bekerja pada desain program pengajaran yang memenuhi persyaratan untuk
mendorong kewirausahaan. Untuk melayani upaya perencanaan kurikuler ini, dan dengan cara
saran untuk praktik yang baik, model empiris yang timbul dari pekerjaan yang dijelaskan di atas
menetapkan penerapan model pengajaran berbasis keterampilan yang menempatkan
pengetahuan, keterampilan, dan sikap yang diperlukan untuk pengembangan kewirausahaan yang
memadai di jantung dari setiap intervensi pendidikan.
** end of file - 21**

Verslas: Teorija ir praktika
Business: Theory and Practice
Issn 1648-0627 print / Issn 1822-4202 online
2012 13(1): 27–35

doi:10.3846/btp.2012.03
ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES:

ARE STUDENTS QUALIFIED TO START A BUSINESS?
José Luis Vázquez-Burgete1, Ana Lanero2, Agota Giedre Raisiene3, María Purificación García4
1, 2, 4
University of León, Campus de Veganzana s/n, 24071 León, Spain
3
Mykolas Romeris University, Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lithuania
E-mails: 1jose-luis.vazquez@unileon.es; 2ana.lanero@unileon.es (corresponding author);
3
agotar@mruni.eu; 4mpgarm@unileon.es
Received 8 December 2011; accepted 30 December 2011
Abstract. Over the last decade, entrepreneurship education has been acknowledged by European governments as a promising
way to improve the work insertion of young people and, at the same time, contribute to general purposes of social and economic
welfare. Particularly, social entrepreneurship is considered an emerging area of growth which provides the opportunity to make
a difference in global community contexts. From this view, this paper proposes a model of entrepreneurship education based
on the European Framework on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning to analyze the involvement of universities in related
actions as perceived by students within Humanities and Social Sciences. Data was collected from a total sample of 448 students
at two Spanish universities. Descriptive analysis was used to examine the development of entrepreneurship-related knowledge,
skills and attitudes among students and its implications for labor insertion of future graduates in Humanities and Social contexts.
Further conclusions of the study are discussed.
Keywords: social entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship competence, European Higher Education
Area (EHEA), Social Sciences, Humanities, entrepreneurship education in Spain.
JEL Classification: M54, I23, I25.
VERSLUMO UGDYMAS HUMANITARINIŲ IR SOCIALINIŲ MOKSLŲ STUDIJOSE:

AR STUDENTAI YRA PASIRENGĘ PRADĖTI SAVO VERSLĄ?
José Luis Vázquez-Burgete1, Ana Lanero2, Agota Giedrė Raišienė3, María Purificación García4
1, 2, 4
Leono universitetas, Campus de Veganzana s/n, 24071 Leonas, Ispanija
3
Mykolo Romerio universitetas, Ateities g. 20, LT-08303 Vilnius, Lietuva
El. paštas: 1jose-luis.vazquez@unileon.es; 2ana.lanero@unileon.es;
3
agotar@mruni.eu; 4mpgarm@unileon.es
Įteikta 2011-12-8; priimta 2011-12-30
Santrauka. Pastarąjį dešimtmetį verslumo ugdymas Europos šalių vyriausybių pripažintas kaip perspektyvus būdas, galintis
padėti pagerinti jaunų žmonių įsitraukimą į darbo rinką ir paskatinti ES socialinės bei ekonominės gerovės augimą. Tad so-
cialinio verslumo vystymas tampa itin aktualus, siekiant pokyčių pasaulio visuomenės kontekste. Remdamiesi šiuo požiūriu ir
mokymosi visą gyvenimą gairėmis, straipsnio autoriai domisi, kokią įtaką studijos universitete turi formuojant humanitarinių
http://www.btp.vgtu.lt/en
28 J. L. Vázquez-Burgete et al. Entrepreneurship education in humanities and social sciences...
ir socialinių mokslų studentų verslumo kompetencijas. Pristatomi empirinio tyrimo, kuriame dalyvavo 448 dviejų Ispanijos
universitetų absolventai, rezultatai. Remiantis aprašomosios statistikos metodais analizuojama, kokių žinių ir įgūdžių, nuostatų,
leidžiančių komercializuoti būsimus savo darbo rezultatus, yra įgiję studentai, diskutuojama, kiek verslumo kompetencijos gali
padėti įsitraukimo į darbo rinką aspektu. Tyrimo rezultatai rodo, kad į verslo aplinką geriau pasiruošę integruotis socialinių
mokslų krypties absolventai, o humanitarinių studijų krypties atstovai, nors ir pasižymi teigiamomis nuostatomis asmeninio
verslumo ugdymo požiūriu, stokoja tam būtinų žinių ir gebėjimų.
Reikšminiai žodžiai: socialinis verslumas, verslumo ugdymas, verslumo kompetencijos, Europos aukštojo mokslo erdvė, soci-
aliniai mokslai, humanitariniai mokslai, verslumo ugdymas Ispanijoje.
1. Introduction From this general framework, this paper reviews the

concept of entrepreneurial competence and uses it to analy-
In the last few years, adaptation of university systems to
ze differences in entrepreneurship education across various
the requirements of the European Higher Education Area
Social and Humanities disciplines. In doing that, we first
(EHEA) are entailing significant transformations in sur-
review the guidelines marked by the European common
rounding countries, in an effort to deliver a better response
policy with regard to the inclusion of entrepreneurship
to the social needs and expectations frequently assigned
education as part of the university academic mission and
to these institutions. In this respect, it has been traditio-
provide a global description of the current state of the matter
nally assumed that the educational level acquired must
in European and Spanish institutions of higher education.
qualify college students to practice a professional activity,
Next, we review previous literature on entrepreneurship
which in turn must satisfy the demands of human capital
education and define the construct of entrepreneurial com-
required by the productive sector, in order to contribute
petence in terms of specific knowledge, skills and attitudes.
to socio-economic welfare. Nevertheless, the traditional
According to that, we present an empirical study carried out
flow of transactions between higher education and labor
in two Spanish universities aimed to validate the model pro-
market has been proved to be insufficient in contemporary
posed and analyze differences in entrepreneurship educati-
occidental societies, since unemployment, flexibility and
on between students in the various Social and Humanities
over-qualification are considered the more representative
areas. Finally, conclusions and implications of the study
descriptors of young people’s work insertion over the last
are discussed.
decade in Europe (Eurostat 2009; García-Montalvo, Peiró
2009; OECD 2009a, 2009b).
For this reason, different academics and researchers 2. Entrepreneurship education in the European
agree that European universities face the challenge of Higher Education Area
orienting their academic programs to new social demands Encouragement for entrepreneurship education is cur-
(Flavián, Lozano 2004; Michavila 2009; Zabalda 2009), in an rently at the heart of a host of political requirements in
attempt to close the gap between students’ acquired know- the countries of the European Union (EU), in an effort
ledge and labor market exigencies, and provide full coverage to develop a dynamic enterprising culture and foster new
of the needs of all university users and, by extension, those firm creation as a source of sustainable competitiveness in
of society. Looking for this purpose, entrepreneurship can the continent (European Parliament 2000; COM 2010). An
be seen as a promising option of work insertion and pro- outcome of that has been the inclusion of the sense of initia-
fessional development of recent university graduates, at the tive and entrepreneurship in a European Framework on Key
service of broader objectives of sustainable socio-economic Competences for Lifelong Learning (Recommendation 2006).
welfare. From this view, it is recognized that entrepreneurship acts
Not in vain, in the context of the wide-ranging social as a source of personal and professional self-realization,
and economic changes that have been occurring in indus- active citizenship and social inclusion for individuals, and
trialized countries over recent decades, new, small enter- that’s why entrepreneurial competences should be devel-
prises have become a key element in creating employment, oped by the end of compulsory school or training, acting
innovation and social welfare in all modern, competitive as a foundation for further lifelong learning.
economies (Acs et al.1994; Thurik 1999; Audretsch et al. In this context, contemporary educational systems are
2002; Bosma et al. 2008). This is true to such an extent that seeing their training missions expanded by the assignment
encouragement for entrepreneurship is currently at the of a further responsibility to provide a socio-economic
heart of a host of requirements and public standards in the boost, taking the form of the channeling of future genera-
countries of the European Union (EU), in an effort that tions of the working population towards entrepreneurial
has reached out to affect economic, social, educational and goals in accordance with the new needs of the productive
employment policies (COM 2000, 2003, 2008). sector. Among all educational institutions, the universities’
Verslas: teorija ir praktika, 2012, 13(1): 27–35 29
response to this aim is of particular relevance, as they are and degrees and providing recognition for achievements
the principal agents for generating and disseminating spe- in entrepreneurial competences. However, more resour-
cialized knowledge in the context of a social reality in which ces seem to be allocated to entrepreneurship education in
access to higher education is more and more generalized in Western institutions (EIDG 2008a).
developed countries. Particularly in Spain, most universities have developed
In fact, the advisability of promoting entrepreneurial and implemented specific extracurricular actions to give
mindsets has extended to the current Bologna Process aimed support to potential entrepreneurial initiatives of students,
to build a modern degree structure adapted to the profes- in the form of University-Enterprise foundations, business
sional profiles required by the current EU society through chairs, spin-off programs or specific institutional programs
the establishment of a common European Higher Education and centers on entrepreneurship (Directorate General of
Area (EHEA). In this context, the project Tuning educational SME Policy 2006; ANECA 2007). However, the specific
structures in Europe (González, Wagenaar 2003), devoted to impact of those institutional initiatives on the entrepre-
the identification of learning results and desirable compe- neurial projections of Spanish graduates seem to be largely
tences by thematic area, has included entrepreneurship into unknown, when not some disappointing. In this regard,
the group of systemic transversal competences to be trained previous evidence point to the general conclusion that stu-
along all levels of university higher education. dents perceive a scarce consideration of entrepreneurship
Despite this political commitment, it is estimated that topics within university programs (Vazquez et al. 2010b),
more than half of university students in Europe do not have and since academic courses focus on the wage-employment
access to entrepreneurial education, some differences exis- paradigm, the transit through university has a poor effect
ting by country (EIDG 2008b). Based on the results of the on the entrepreneurial vocations of students (Vazquez et
Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education in Europe, al. 2009, 2010a).
whereas more and more European universities have nowa- Further, formal instruction in knowledge and abilities
days some institutional system to disseminate the entrepre- concerning new venture creation is usually limited to acade-
neurial culture and give support to new venture creation, mic programs within Business and Economics disciplines,
entrepreneurship education at a curricular level seems to it being practically absent in the curriculum of other acade-
be influenced by type of institution, years of experience and mic fields, especially within Humanities and Non-Business
geographic location. Social areas (Vazquez et al. 2010a, 2010b). In these cases,
As expected, European students are more likely to obtain starting a new firm isn’t even considered as possible labour
access to entrepreneurial education if they attend a business option for students, thus there is no awareness of the need
school or a multidisciplinary institution with a business of teaching basic entrepreneurial competences in the lecture
department. Moreover, the way in which these institutions hall, neither a structured action which allows students to
conduct entrepreneurial education seems to be also diffe- learn them in a regulated way. All of these leads to a lack
rent and more elaborate. This can be explained, to some of receptivity and support to potential entrepreneurial ini-
degree, by the fact that these types of institutions have been tiatives of students, and lots of brilliant business ideas are
frontrunners in taking on entrepreneurial education and forced to oblivion.
have therefore worked with it for a longer period of time. This lack of entrepreneurship education in Spanish uni-
In the same line, time is a factor for implementing entre- versities is due to many factors affecting most institutions
preneurship in higher education in Europe, in the sense that of higher education in the European countries, particularly
the longer an institution has been engaged in entrepreneu- the shortage of human and financial resources available for
rial education, the more elaborate it is. such a kind of pursuits, the rigid organizational structure
And with regard to geographic location, the survey also of higher education institutions, the poor multidisciplinary
points to a difference in access to entrepreneurship educati- tradition in the organization of academic programs, and
on depending on students’ country of residence. In general, the low motivation and training of the academic staff in
students in the countries members of the EU have better entrepreneurship issues (EIDG 2008a, 2008b).
access to entrepreneurial education than students in non-
member countries or in those which have recently joined
3. The entrepreneurship competence
the EU. In short, more institutions in Western Europe offer
entrepreneurship education compared to Eastern Europe. In terms of curricular design, a competence can be defined
However, the study doesn’t support the assumption that as a dynamic combination of attributes that together per-
entrepreneurial education in the last countries is less elabo- mit a competent performance in a field, as the result of an
rate than in the former. In fact, more institutions in Eastern educational process (González, Wagenaar 2003). From this
Europe have a broader model of entrepreneurial educa- view, three components are often identified in any compe-
tion, with more institutions having specialized professors tence: i) a conceptual component referred to the acquisition
of theoretical knowledge about a specific academic field; Table 1. Entrepreneurship competence

ii) a procedural component, based on the development of Knowledge Skills Attitudes
practical skills to apply the conceptual knowledge acquired; Available Proactive project Initiative
and iii) an attitudinal component of learned values, rules opportunities management Pro-activeness
and personal attributes (Bolívar 1996; González, Wagenaar for personal, (ability to Independence
professional plan, organize, Innovativeness
2003; Biggs 2005).
and/or business manage, lead and Motivation and
According to this specification, European guidelines activities delegate, analyze, determination
remark three fundamental objectives of entrepreneurship Workings of the communicate, to meet
teaching programs at the university (EIDG 2008a, COM economy de-brief, evaluate objectives...
2003): i) developing entrepreneurial drive among students Organizational and record)
and raising their awareness of self-employment as a career opportunities and Representation
challenges and negotiation
option; ii) providing the technical and business skills that Ethical position of Autonomous
are needed to identify and exploit business opportunities, enterprises and collaborative
set up a new firm and manage its growth; and iii) promoting Fair trade work
the development of personal qualities such as creativity, and social Self-knowledge
risk-taking and responsibility. entrepreneurship... Risk taking and
assessment
In the same line, specialized literature is full of attempts for
determining the more appropriate contents to be included in Source: Adapted from Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the
entrepreneurship training programs (Cotton, Gibb 1992; Gibb European Parliament and of the Council (Recommendation
2006)
1993; Hood, Young 1993; Kourilsky 1995; Hisrich, Peters 1998;
Smith et al. 2006; Soutaris et al. 2007; Liñán 2007; Pittaway
et al. 2009). As a point of reference for all these divergent 4. Sampling and measures
approaches, the European Framework on Key Competences To make it possible the generalization of results to diffe-
for Lifelong Learning (Recommendation 2006) specifies the rent institutional contexts, the study sample consisted of
essential knowledge, skills and attitudes related to the sense undergraduates in Social and Legal Sciences at two Spanish
of initiative and entrepreneurship as a competence, as it is universities: the Complutesian University of Madrid and
summarized in Table 1. In short, sense of initiative and entre- the University of León. Participants were registered from
preneurship is defined as “an individual ability to turn ideas the final year of their academic programs, in order to pro-
into action. It includes creativity, innovation, and risk taking, vide evidence in undergraduates with enough previous
as well as the ability to plan and manage projects in order to university experience.
achieve objectives” (Recommendation 2006: 17). The total sample comprised a total of 448 universi-
Beyond that specification, there is a growing aware- ty students, ensuring a criterion of representativeness of
ness of the need of orientating entrepreneurship education 95% (being e = ± 5%; p = q = 0.50). By gender, this sam-
according to the needs of students with different acade- ple was composed of 337 females (75.2%) and 111 males
mic background (COM 2010; Anderson, Jack 2008; Hofer, (24.8%), aged 20 to 47 years old (M = 23.10, DT = 2.95).
Potter 2010). For instance, within Business schools and On the other hand, 21.7% of respondents indicated a main
Economic studies it is assumed that, since many business academic background in Business areas, 21.9% in Public
contents are offered separately (i.e., marketing, manage- Administration and Law, 40.8% in Human Sciences, and
ment, etc.), entrepreneurship programs should have a very 15.6% in Humanities.
narrow focus, stressing the start-up phase and the growth Data collection was based on a procedure of collective
of small enterprises. Otherwise, experts agree that students voluntary self-administration of a questionnaire in sched-
in other Social and Humanities areas are usually good in uled university classes randomly selected, in the presence of
technical aspects and frequently have very strong business a researcher trained for this end. The questionnaire admin-
ideas, their weaknesses concentrating in the development istered comprised three scales for measuring perceived edu-
of specific business knowledge and abilities. From this view, cation of entrepreneurial knowledge, skills and attitudes.
the focus could be on social entrepreneurship as emerging Particularly, students were asked to report their academic
area of growth which provides the opportunity to make a experiences in learning ten conceptual contents (e.g.,
difference in community contexts. However, very little is “economic contribution of entrepreneurship”, “business
known about entrepreneurship education in Non-Business structure and functioning”, “business start-up as a career
Social and Humanities disciplines in European universities. choice”, etc.), eleven skills (e.g., “planning and organization”,
To fill this gap, we next describe an empirical study in two “management”, “risk taking and assessment”, etc.), and eight
Spanish universities to analyze the perceptions and experi- attitudes (e.g., “initiative”, “pro-activeness”, “creativity”, etc.)
ences of students in the various Social disciplines. specified according to the European Framework on Key
Competences for Lifelong Learning (Recommendation Principal components analysis revealed the presence
2006). Respondents were asked to rate the perceived impor- of four factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining a
tance assigned to each content in their respective academic 64.88% of the total variance. Nevertheless, using Catell’s
programs, on a eleven-point Likert-type scale from 0 (“not scree test (Catell 1966), it was decided to retain only three
important at all”) to 10 (“very important”). components for further investigation.
To aid in the interpretation of the three components
5. Results identified and its discriminant validity, Varimax rotation
was performed. The rotated solution presented in Table 2
Once data was collected and processed, we used principal revealed the multidimensionality of the scales, according
components factor analysis with program SPSS 15.0 to test the to the three dimensions of knowledge, skills and attitudes
construct validity of the variables included in the model. adopted in the European Framework on Key Competences
Prior to performing factor analysis, the suitability of data for Lifelong Learning (Recommendation 2006). In this sense,
was assessed. Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed every item had a loading above .40 in its respective con-
the presence of many coefficients of .30 and above. Also, the struct, explaining the 22.66%, 20.12%, and 18.02% of the
Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin value was .946, exceeding the recom- variance. Moreover, all the scales retained were associated
mended value of .60 (Kaiser 1970, 1974) and the Barlett’s Test to Cronbach’s α values of reliability over the recommended
of Sphericity (Barlett 1954) reached statistical significance, .70 (Nunnally 1978).
supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.
Table 2. Factor analysis

Knowledge Skills Attitudes Mean
Business start-up as a career choice .807 2.95
Identification of business opportunities .746 3.19
Steps to start a business .755 2.64
Entrepreneurship local resources .715 2.46
Entrepreneurs’ work functions .713 4.57
Economic contribution of entrepreneurship .704 4.30
Business structure and functioning .702 4.02
Factors of business success .690 4.53
Business models by academic area .673 4.18
Social contribution of entrepreneurship .646 4.01
Planning and organization abilities .742 4.64
Executive abilities and leadership .679 4.42
Negotiation abilities .670 4.00
Analysis and assessment abilities .648 4.93
Management abilities .639 4.14
Communication abilities .626 5.06
Delegation abilities .614 3.55
Team work abilities .606 5.46
Risk-taking and assessment .562 4.06
Self-knowledge abilities .530 3.93
Autonomous work abilities .446 3.78
Creativity .756 4.16
Independence .753 4.45
Innovativeness .750 4.14
Pro-activeness .741 4.52
Responsibility .739 5.68
Initiative .738 4.49
Goal self-direction .704 4.95
Change flexibility .697 4.23
% Variance explained 22.66% 20.12% 18.02%
Cronbach’s α reliability .921 .925 .921
Table 2 also displays the mean scores obtained by the When the results for the dependent variables were
total sample in the components of the three factors iden- considered separately, differences in perceived teaching of
tified. In short, students reported a poor experience of entrepreneurship knowledge (F (3, 444) = 34.51; partial
education of entrepreneurship contents, with mean scores eta squared = .189), skills (F (3, 444) = 10.03; partial eta
under the intermediate 5 in the ten-point scale, with the squared = .063), and attitudes (F (3, 444) = 6.45; partial eta
only exception of communication abilities (M = 5.06) and squared = .042) were statistically significant according to a
responsibility (M = 5.68). In aggregate terms, mean scores Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .017 (.05/3).
were higher for the skills (M = 4.36) and attitudes scales HSD Tukey post hoc test was performed to analyze the
(M = 4.58) than in the knowledge scale (M = 4.58). differences between students in specific academic areas
In order to analyze the usefulness of the three factors more in deep. Statistically significant differences obtained
previously identified to discriminate between groups of by using an alpha level of .05 are shown in Table 4. In a
undergraduate students with different entrepreneurship general way, students within Business-related areas repor-
learning experiences, we performed a Multivariate Analysis ted higher scores than their partners in other fields in the
of Variance (MANOVA) with academic background as three dimensions analyzed. Undergraduates within Public
independent variable categorized in the four groups of Administration and Law also reported moderated learning
Business Sciences, Public Administration and Law, Human experiences of entrepreneurship knowledge, while display-
Sciences, and Humanities. ed the lowest mean scores in the attitudes scale. Opposite,
Results displayed in Table 3 showed a statistically signi- Human Sciences students had relatively high perceptions
ficant difference between students within the academic dis- of education of skills and attitudes when compared to other
ciplines considered on the combined dependent variables: academic fields. Finally, students in Humanities obtained
F (9, 1075) = 16.53, p < .001; Wilks’ Lambda = .730; partial the lowest punctuations in most scales. These results are
eta squared = .100. also summarized in Figure 1.
Table 3. Results from MANOVA

Variable Wilks’ Lambda F Partial Eta Squared F Partial Eta Squared
Knowledge 34.51* .189
Skills .730 16.53*** .100 10.03* .063
Attitudes 6.45* .042
* p < .017 (Bonferroni adjusted alpha level); *** p < .001
Table 4. HSD Tukey post hoc analysis
Independent variable Mean dif.

Dependent variable Std. Error Sig.
Academic area (I) Academic area (J) (I-J)
Public Adm. and Law 1.31 .255 .001

Knowledge Business Sciences
Human Sciences 1.59 .223 .001
Humanities 2.77 .279 .001
Public Adm. and Law Humanities 1.46 .279 .001
Human Sciences Humanities 1.17 .250 .001
Public Adm. and Law 1.02 .274 .001
Skills Business Sciences
Humanities 1.46 .300 .001
Human Sciences Humanities 1.05 .269 .001
Attitudes Business Sciences Public Adm. And Law 1.13 .292 .001
Human Sciences Public Adm. and Law 0.98 .255 .001
5.05 4.98 4.97 4.82

5
4.57 4.44
3.74 3.96 3.84
4
3.46 3.52
3
2.29
2
0
Knowledge Skills Attitudes
Business Sciences Publid Administration and Law Human Sciences Humanities
Fig. 1. Mean differences by academic area
6. Discussion and conclusions teaching model placing the knowledge, skills and attitudes
necessary for an adequate development of entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurial activities act as one main driving force for
at the very heart of any educational intervention.
economic and social development world around. European
Furthermore, the structure of entrepreneurship edu-
governments have gained awareness of that in the last de-
cation validated in this work can be taken as a prescriptive
cade and a great amount of political measures have been
framework for evaluating the effectiveness of the programs
suggested to include entrepreneurship education as part
implemented in European universities, from the personal
of academic curricula in higher education institutions.
experiences of undergraduate students with different lear-
However, most high level programs seem to be much more
ning experiences. In this regard, results from the study pre-
centred on training wage-earner managers or technicians
sented here state a clear underconsideration of entrepre-
than offering qualified and responsible entrepreneurs and
neurship competences in the Spanish universities analyzed,
enterprises to society. Given this relatively early stage of
as showed by the poor assessments of the last-year students
development of entrepreneurship education in European interviewed in terms of entrepreneurship knowledge, skills
universities, this paper has reviewed the construct of en- and attitudes. However, this picture seems to be different
trepreneurship competence to analyze differences in entre- for students with different academic background. As expec-
preneurship education between groups of students in the ted, students within Business, followed by Human sciences,
various Social and Humanities disciplines. reported the most positive perceptions of entrepreneurs-
In general, the results obtained support the distinction hip education in the university, whereas undergraduates in
between the three components encompassed by entrepre- Humanities disciplines were found to be the less satisfied
neurship formal teaching as perceived by students, in terms of with the learning experiences provided. From this pattern
the knowledge, skills and attitudes specified in the European of results, it can be stressed the lack of attention paid to the
Framework on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning entrepreneurial potential of students within non-Business
(Recommendation 2006). According to that distinction, the areas, in the sense that promising patterns of non-traditio-
climate of change characterizing the current establishment of nal social business opportunities aren’t being recognized as
new degree programs adapted to the EHEA offers an excel- desirable and feasible work options for future graduates.
lent opportunity to work on the design of teaching programs While the fact that the empirical study reported here was
meeting the requirements to encourage entrepreneurship. To carried out in two different Spanish universities demons-
serve this curricular planning effort, and by way of sugges- trates that the conclusions drawn from it are sufficiently
tions for good practices, the empirical model arising from solid, further studies are required to allow generalization
the work described above sets the adoption of a skill-based of the results to other Spanish or European institutions.
It would be even appropriate to consider other models of Directorate General of SME Policy [online]. 2006. Iniciativas
higher education with the aim of gaining greater precision emprendedoras en la universidad española. Madrid: Centro
de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y
in the identification of the educational factors determining
Comercio. Available from Internet: http://www.ipyme.org/
the effectiveness of academic programs to foster entrepre- Publicaciones/EstudioIniciativasEmprendedoras.pdf
neurship in the youth.
EIDG. 2008b. Survey of entrepreneurship in higher education
in Europe. Main report, European Commission. Available
References from Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/
files/support_measures/training_education/highedsur-
Acs, Z. J.; Audretsch, D. B.; Evans, D. 1994. Why does the self- vey_en.pdf
employment rate vary across countries and over time?, in EIDG. 2008a. Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially
CEPR Discussion Paper Nº 871. London: Centre for Economic within non-business studies. Final report of the expert
Policy Research. group. Brussels: European Commission Enterprise and In-
Anderson, A. R.; Jack, S. L. 2008. Role typologies for enterpri- dustry Directorate General. Available from Internet: http://
sing education: the professional artisan?, Journal of Small ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/support_measu-
Business and Enterprise Development 15: 259–273. res/training_education/entr_highed_en.pdf.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000810871664 European Parliament. 2000. Lisbon European Counci, 23 and 24
ANECA. 2007. Mapa de las actividades de empleo realizadas March 2000 Presidency Conclusions, European Parliament.
por las universidades. Madrid: National Agency for Quality Available from Internet: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA). summits/lis1_en.htm.
Audretsch, D. B.; Thurik, R.; Verheul, I.; Wennekers, S. (Eds.). Eurostat. 2009. Eurostat Labour market statistics. Luxembourg:
2002. Entrepreneurship: determinants and policy in a Office for the official publications of the European Union.
European-U.S. comparison. Boston-Dordrecht: Kluwer Flavián, C.; Lozano, F. J. 2004. Market orientation in public
academic Publishers. university: a challenger for the Spanish university system,
Barlett, M. S. 1954. A note on the multiplying factors for various International Review on Public and Non Profit Marketing
chi square approximations, Journal of the Royal Statistical 1(2): 9–28.
Society 16(B): 296–298. García-Montalvo, J.; Peiró, J. M. 2009. Análisis de la sobrecuali-
Biggs, J. 2005. Calidad del aprendizaje universitario. Madrid: ficación y la flexibilidad laboral, in Observatorio de Inserción
Narcea. Laboral de los Jóvenes. Valencia: Fundación Bancaja-IVIE.
Bolívar, A. I. (Ed.). 1996. Jornadas sobre actitudes y educación Gibb, A. A.; Hannon, P. 2006. Towards the Entrepreneurial
ambiental. Granada: I.C.E. de la Universidad de Granada. University, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Edu-
cation 4: 73.
Bosma, N.; Acs, Z. J.; Autio, E.; Corduras, A.; Levie, J. 2008.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2008 Executive Report. Gibb, A. A. 1993. The enterprise culture and education, Inter-
Babson Park, MA-London: Babson College-London Busi- national Small Business Journal 11(3): 11–34.
ness School. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026624269301100301
Catell, R. B. 1966. The scree test for number of factors, Multiva- González, J.; Wagenaar, R. (Eds.). 2003. Tuning Educational
riate Behavioral Research 1: 245–276. Structures in Europe. Bilbao: University of Deusto.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 Hisrich, R. D.; Peters, M. P. 1998. Entrepreneurship. 4ª edition.
COM. 2010(2020). 2010. Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill.
sustainable and inclusive growth, Communication from Hofer, A.; Potter, J. 2010. Universities, innovation and entrepre-
the Commission Europe 2020. neurship: criteria and examples of good practice, in OECD
COM. 2003. Entrepreneurship in Europe. European Communi- Local Economic and Employment Development –LEED–
ties, Green Paper, Commission of the European Communities. Working Papers. Trento: OECD Publishing.
Available from Internet: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ Hood, J. N.; Young, J. E. 1993. Entrepreneurship’s requisite areas
LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2003:0027:FIN:EN:PDF of development: a survey of top executives in successful en-
COM. 2008. Think Small First – A “Small Business Act” for trepreneurial firms, Journal of Business Venturing 8: 115–135.
Europe. Communication from the Commission to the http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(93)90015-W
Council, the European Parliament, the European Eco- Kaiser, H. 1970. A second generation Little Jiffy, Psychometrics
nomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the 35: 401–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291817
Regions, European Commission. Available from Inter-
net: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ. Kaiser, H. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity, Psychometrics
do?uri=COM:2008:0394:FIN:EN:PDF 39: 31–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575
COM. 2000. Lisbon strategy for growth: towards a green and Kourilsky, M. L. 1995 Entrepreneurship Education: Oppor-
innovative economy. Brussels: European Commission. tunity in Search of Curriculum. Kansas City, MO: Center
for Entrepreneurial Leadership, Ewing Marion Kauffman
Cotton, J.; Gibb, A. A. 1992. An Evaluation Study of Enterprise Foundation.
Education in the North of England. UK: Durham University
Business School. Liñán, F. 2007. The role of entrepreneurship education in the
entrepreneurial process, in Fayolle, A. (Ed.). Handbook of
research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1). Cheltenham, Soutaris, V.; Zerbinati, S.; Al-laham, A. 2007. Do entrepreneurs-
UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 230–247. hip programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science
Michavila, F. 2009. Nuevos contenidos, nuevas metodologías, in and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration
Toledo, F.; Michavila, F. (Eds.). Empleo y nuevas titulaciones and resources, Journal of Business Venturing 22: 566–591.
en Europa. Castellón: Tecnos Universitat Jaume I, 37–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. NY: McGraw-Hill. Thurik, R. 1999. Entrepreneurship, industrial transformation
and growth, in Libercap, G. D. (Ed.). The sources of entre-
OECD. 2009a. Education at a Glance. Paris: Organization for preneurial activity. Stanford, CA: JAI Press, 29–66.
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
Vázquez, J. L.; Georgiev, I.; Gutiérrez, P.; Lanero, A.; García, M. P.
OECD. 2009b. Organization for Economic. Paris: Organization 2010a. Promoting regional development from university.
for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Students’ perceptions on entrepreneurship motivation and
Pittaway, L.; Hannon, P.; Gibb, A.; Thompson, J. 2009. Asses- training programs, Trakia Journal of Sciences 8(1): 1–7.
sment practice in enterprise education, International Journal Vázquez, J. L.; Lanero, A.; Gutiérrez, P.; García, M. P.; Alves, H.;
of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research 15: 71–93. Georgiev, I. 2010b. Entrepreneurship education in the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13552550910934468 university: does it make the difference?, Trakia Journal of
Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and Sciences 8(3): 64–70.
of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key competences for Vázquez, J. L.; Naghiu, A.; Gutiérrez, P.; Lanero, A.; García, M. P.
lifelong learning, Official Journal of the European Union L 2009. Entrepreneurial potential in the University: intentions
394: 10–18. and attitudes towards new venture creation, Bulletin UASVM
Smith, A. J.; Collins, L. A.; Hannon, P. D. 2006. Embedding 66(2): 507–512.
new entrepreneurship programmes in UK higher education Zabalda, M. A. 2009. La nueva misión académica, in Toledo, F.;
institutions. Challenges and considerations, Education and Michavila, F. (Eds.). Empleo y nuevas titulaciones en Europa.
Training 48: 555–567. Castellón: Tecnos Universitat Jaume I, 73–105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00400910610710001
José Luis VÁZQUEZ-BURGUETE (PhD, PhD HC) is a Titular Professor on Marketing in the Faculty of Economic and Manage-
ment Sciences at Leon University, Spain; Holder of the Bancaja Chair on Young Entrepreneurship; President of the International
Association on Public and Nonprofit Marketing (IAPNM/AIMPN).
Ana LANERO (PhD) is a Research Assistant on Marketing and Market Research in the Faculty of Economic and Management
Sciences at Leon University, Spain.
Agota Giedre RAISIENE (PhD) is an Associate Professor on Organizational Behaviour in the Faculty of Politics and Management
at Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania; President of the Academical Management and Administration Association.
María PURIFICACIÓN GARCÍA (PhD) is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Labor Sciences at Leon University, Spain.
LITERATUR REVIEW
22 Type : Journal
Title : The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A
Systematic Review and Research Agenda
Authors & : GHULAM NABI
Department Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
FRANCISCO LIÑA´ N
University of Seville, Spain, and Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom
ALAIN FAYOLLE
EM LYON Business School, France
NORRIS KRUEGER
University of Phoenix, United States, and Entrepreneurship Northwest,
United States
ANDREAS WALMSLEY
Plymouth University, United Kingdom
Journal : Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2017, Vol. 16, No. 2,
277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
Ringkasan :
Pendidikan kewirausahaan (Enterpreneurship Education) atau disingkat dengan EE telah

berkembang secara pesat di universitas yang ada diseluruh negara. Hal ini didapat berdasarkan dari
157 artikel yang telah dirujuk mulai dari tahun 2004 s.d 2016. Pertumbuhan ini mencerminkan
peningkatan pengakuan bahwa program EE berbasis universitas (selanjutnya disebut sebagai
program EE) menjanjikan untuk mendukung berbagai potensi hasil wirausaha. Misalnya,
peningkatan keterampilan, pengetahuan, dan sikap penciptaan usaha siswa (Greene & Saridakis,
2008) dan memulai bisnis pascasarjana dan penciptaan lapangan kerja secara keseluruhan (Greene,
Katz, & Johannisson, 2004; Rideout & Gray, 2013) pada akhirnya berkontribusi pada ekonomi
pertumbuhan dan perkembangan (Bosma, Acs, Autio, Coduras, & Levine, 2008).
Dalam artikel ini penulis meninjau secara sistematis bukti empiris tentang dampak EE berbasis
pendidikan tinggi diterbitkan dalam dekade terakhir. Dengan menggunakan kerangka model
pengajaran, penulis memusatkan pada penilaian berbagai hasil EE dalam studi dampak. Tujuan
sekunder adalah untuk menguji sejauh mana hubungan antara metode pedagogis yang digunakan
dan hasil spesifik yang dicapai, pertama penulis menawarkan gambaran luas dari bukti dampak EE,
yang terakhir mengeksplorasi apakah hasil campuran dalam studi dampak terkait dengan metode
pedagogis yang berbeda. Untuk memajukan pemahaman tentang bagaimana meneliti dampak EE,
kita membutuhkan keduanya.
Kekuatan artikel terlihat dari mayoritas artikel yang dirujuk diterbitkan dalam 5 tahun terakhir dan
didominasi oleh sampel mahasiswa Eropa, sarjana, dan kewirausahaan / bisnis. Mayoritas berasal
dari 2011 dan seterusnya (100 artikel, 63%) dan tidak tercakup dalam tinjauan sebelumnya atau
meta-analisis (mis., Martin et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Data berasal dari 38 negara,
didominasi oleh Eropa (81 artikel, 51%, terutama Inggris dengan 28/18%); AS (27/17%); Asia
(26/16%); dan kemudian diikuti oleh Afrika (16/10%); Australia (2/1%); dan perbandingan
internasional (5/3%). Siswa yang dijadikan sampel sebagian besar sarjana (53%) atau pascasarjana
(12%), atau alumni atau mahasiswa universitas yang tidak ditentukan. Mayoritas belajar
kewirausahaan dan bisnis (35%) atau kursus kombinasi bisnis (24%)
Penulis menemukan bahwa penggunaan metode pedagogis yang berbeda setidaknya menjawab
pertanyaan bahwa adanya ketidakkonsistenan dampak dalam studi. Namun, mengingat bahwa
temuan trsebut didasarkan pada sebagian sampel dari populasi artikel kami, mereka indikasi
daripada konfirmasi. yang terbaik dari pengetahuan kami, ini adalah tinjauan sistematis pertama
yang menggunakan kerangka model pengajaran untuk menilai dampak EE. Dalam pandangan
penulis, ini memberikan wawasan baru dan bermakna. EE membuat klaim kuat untuk memiliki
dampak yang signifikan dan bias yang kuat terhadap pedagogi pengalaman. Sementara
mengkonfirmasikan kelemahan dalam studi dampak EE (misalnya, dominasi pada pengukuran
dampak sikap dan tingkat kearah yang lebih rendah, dan kurangnya detail kunci mengenai
pedagogi), penulis juga mengidentifikasi tiga cara utama untuk bergerak maju. 1) penulis
menambahkan nilai dengan memberikan panggilan yang mutakhir dan secara empiris berakar untuk
penelitian masa depan dalam pendidikan tinggi. 2) menerapkan kerangka model pengajaran, kami
menawarkan beberapa saran yang menarik dan kurang ditekankan untuk meningkatkan penelitian
EE., dan 3) penulis memberikan beberapa wawasan penting ke dalam alasan untuk temuan yang
bertentangan dalam penelitian EE (misalnya, kelangkaan penelitian lintas budaya, gender-spesifik
dan pedagogis-perbandingan) yang dapat digali lebih lanjut melalui studi tunggal / intervensi,
sehingga kita dapat memahami bagaimana EE benar-benar bekerja dalam teori dan praktik

Q Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2017, Vol. 16, No. 2, 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026
........................................................................................................................................................................
The Impact of Entrepreneurship

Education in Higher Education:
A Systematic Review and
Research Agenda
GHULAM NABI
Manchester Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
FRANCISCO LIÑÁN
University of Seville, Spain, and Anglia Ruskin University, United Kingdom
ALAIN FAYOLLE
EM LYON Business School, France
NORRIS KRUEGER
University of Phoenix, United States, and Entrepreneurship Northwest, United States
ANDREAS WALMSLEY
Plymouth University, United Kingdom
Using a teaching model framework, we systematically review empirical evidence on the

impact of entrepreneurship education (EE) in higher education on a range of entrepreneurial
outcomes, analyzing 159 published articles from 2004 to 2016. The teaching model framework
allows us for the first time to start rigorously examining relationships between pedagogical
methods and specific outcomes. Reconfirming past reviews and meta-analyses, we find that
EE impact research still predominantly focuses on short-term and subjective outcome
measures and tends to severely underdescribe the actual pedagogies being tested. Moreover,
we use our review to provide an up-to-date and empirically rooted call for less obvious, yet
greatly promising, new or underemphasized directions for future research on the impact of
university-based entrepreneurship education. This includes, for example, the use of novel
impact indicators related to emotion and mind-set, focus on the impact indicators related to
the intention-to-behavior transition, and exploring the reasons for some contradictory findings
in impact studies including person-, context-, and pedagogical model-specific moderators.
........................................................................................................................................................................
Prof. Fayolle, Prof. Krueger, and Prof. Walmsley made an equal Since the first entrepreneurship course at Harvard
contribution to the paper. The authors thank Associate Editor Prof. Business School was delivered in 1947, entrepre-
Siri Terjesen and the anonymous reviewers for providing con- neurship education (EE) programs in higher educa-
structive and helpful guidance throughout the review process. We
tion have grown rapidly and globally (Kuratko, 2005;
also thank Prof. Béchard, Prof. Henry, and Prof. Solomon for their
comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Dr. Christina Purcell Solomon, 2007). This growth reflects increasing rec-
and Imran Akhtar for their technical support. ognition that university-based EE programs (here-
Address all correspondence to: Dr. Ghulam Nabi, Department
of Management, Business School, All Saints Campus, Oxford
after referred to as EE programs) promise to support
Road, Manchester, M15 6BH, UK. Email: G.Nabi@mmu.ac.uk a range of potential entrepreneurial outcomes (Nabi
277
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s
express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
278 Academy of Management Learning & Education June
& Liñán, 2011; Rideout & Gray, 2013). For example, impact of EE may result from the wide diversity of
enhanced student venture creation skills, knowl- pedagogical methods employed in EE programs
edge, and attitudes (Greene & Saridakis, 2008) and (Fretschner & Weber, 2013). This is further compli-
graduate business start-ups and overall job creation cated by the lack of detail on pedagogical in-
(Greene, Katz, & Johannisson, 2004; Rideout & Gray, terventions studied (Martin et al., 2013), and the need
2013) ultimately contributing to economic growth for a stronger, more theory-driven framework for
and development (Bosma, Acs, Autio, Coduras, & assessing the impact of such interventions (cf.
Levine, 2008). Baptista & Naia, 2015; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008;
Synthesizing this fast-growing body of empirical Krueger, 2015; Lackéus, 2015; Neergaard, Tanggaard,
research and reviews on EE outcomes suggests Krueger, & Robinson, 2012). It is therefore important to
three main patterns. First, reviews highlight a focus take stock of research on the pedagogy-entrepreneurial
on short-term, subjective impact measures such as outcomes link within a coherent framework.
entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions, rather Third, few reviews focus on EE specifically in
than longer term ones such as venture creation higher education. Notable exceptions are Pittaway
behavior and business performance, and call for and Cope (2007) and Rideout and Gray (2013), but
future research to address this gap (e.g., Garavan the former is limited to data from over a decade ago
& O’Cinneide, 1994; Henry, Hill & Leitch, 2005; and the latter focuses on articles until 2010/2011.
Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Promoting and implement- We cover 100 articles published in the past 5 years,
ing EE programs entails substantial investment of which have not been covered in previous reviews
time and resources, so it is critically important to of university-based EE impact (e.g., Rideout &
take stock of what we currently know about the Gray, 2013) or meta-analyses of EE outcomes of
range of EE outcomes and provide benchmarks for education in general (e.g., Martin et al., 2013).
further research. There is still, therefore, a need for a current review
Second, recent reviews suggest that the impact of that focuses on EE pedagogy and outcomes in
EE programs on attitudes and behavior is equivocal higher education.
because studies suggest both positive and negative These three distinct yet related research gaps
outcomes (Dickson, Solomon, & Weaver, 2008; Fayolle, form the rationale for this article. Our aim is to re-
2013; Martin, McNally, & Kay, 2013; Thompson, Jones- view systematically the empirical evidence on the
Evans, & Kwong, 2010). These reviews tend to argue impact of higher education-based EE published in
that the contradictory findings of EE impact studies the last decade. Using the teaching model frame-
may be due in part to methodological or statistical work outlined below, we focus on assessing the
artifacts such as cross-sectional survey methodology range of EE outcomes in impact studies. A secondary
and lack of control groups; notably, Rideout and aim is to examine the extent of the relationship be-
Gray’s (2013) review and recent meta-analytical tween the pedagogical methods used and the spe-
studies by Martin et al., (2013) and Bae, Qian, Miao, cific outcomes achieved. While the former offers
and Fiet (2014). However, also likely are other sub- a broad overview of the evidence of EE impact, the
stantial reasons for the contradictory findings in EE latter explores whether the mixed results in impact
impact research that can be teased out with single studies are related to different pedagogical
studies/interventions: for example, the nature and methods. To advance understanding of how to re-
context of pedagogical interventions as well as con- search EE impact, we need both.
textual factors. In their extensive 1970–2004 review of We believe that the main strength of our work here
EE research, Pittaway and Cope (2007) conclude there is is the adoption of an integrated teaching model
a lack of research that directly links student/graduate framework (Figure 1) to offer a coherent, overarching
entrepreneurial outcomes to different pedagogical theoretical structure that covers both a broad range
methods and call for deeper investigation. Pedagogi- of entrepreneurial outcomes and pedagogical
cal methods may emphasize, for example, “explora- methods (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle &
tion, discussion, or experimentation (e.g., library, web Gailly, 2008). Our teaching model framework in-
or other interactive searches, labs, field trips, simula- tegrates a range of impact measures and peda-
tions)” (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:111). gogies. This is particularly useful here because for
As well as examining a range of EE impact mea- the first time we can now evaluate not only the range
sures, it is therefore necessary to examine the dif- of EE outcomes in higher education impact studies,
ferent pedagogical methods that underpin them, not but also any patterns that connect specific types of
just methodological issues. Confusion regarding the pedagogical methods and impact measures. Our
2017 Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, and Walmsley 279
Nature of EE Pedagogical Methods (Béchard Impact Indicators (Jack & Anderson, 1998)
& Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008) Operational Level
• Supply model focusing on reproduction • Level 1: Current and on-going measures

methods such as lectures, reading, and so during the program (e.g., interest and
forth. awareness).
• Demand model focusing on personalized/ • Level 2: Pre- and postprogram measures
participative methods (e.g., interactive (e.g., knowledge, entrepreneurial
searches, simulations). intentions).
• Competence model focusing on • Level 3: Measures between 0 and 5 years
communication, discussion, and production postprogram (e.g., number and type of
methods (e.g., debates, portfolios). start-ups).
• Hybrid models (i.e., mixture of above). • Level 4: 3 to 10 years postprogram (e.g.,
survival of start-ups).
• Level 5: 10 years plus postprogram (e.g.,
contribution to society and economy).
FIGURE 1
An Integrated Teaching Model Framework Encompassing EE Impact and Underpinning Pedagogy
framework therefore permits empirical review with detailed explanation), thereby providing a basis for
a pedagogical slant and responds to calls for more the systematic evaluation of EE impact studies.
rigorous research to explore reasons for the contra- Reflection on different types of EE impact mea-
dictory findings in EE research (cf. Martin et al., sures raises the issue of underpinning pedagogical
2013). The teaching model approach provides criti- methods. Béchard and Grégoire (2005) address this
cal grounding for researchers and practitioners in issue through identifying three “archetypical”
the field of EE. teaching models in higher education: the supply
model, the demand model, and the competence
model, plus two hybrid teaching models. The sup-
Conceptual Framework
ply model focuses on pedagogical methods high-
Pedagogical research highlights how the evalua- lighting a behaviorist paradigm, in terms of the
tion of impact should be a key dimension of any “transmission and reproduction of knowledge and
teaching program and therefore needs to be con- application of procedures” (e.g., lectures, reading,
sidered at the program design stage (Fayolle & watching/listening; Béchard & Grégoire, 2005: 111).
Gailly, 2008). In our research, types of EE impact The demand model focuses on pedagogical
have been integrated into the broader context of methods highlighting a subjectivist paradigm,
a teaching model framework (Béchard & Grégoire, involving personalized meaning through partici-
2005, 2007; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008). We explore two pation in terms of “exploration, discussion and
dimensions in our review—types of impact and un- experimentation” (e.g., library use, interactive
derpinning pedagogy—given the paucity of research searches, simulations; Béchard & Grégoire, 2005:
that directly links student/graduate entrepreneurial 111). The competence model focuses on pedagogical
outcomes to different pedagogical methods (Pittaway methods, highlighting an interactionist theoretical
& Cope, 2007). paradigm, in terms of active problem solving in real-
In the absence of a single impact measure within life situations, where “teaching is conceived as
the teaching model framework, Henry, Hill, and a strategic intervention to allow for—and influen-
Leitch (2003, building on Jack & Anderson, 1998) ce—how students organize the resources at their
propose an impact classification system (incor- disposal (e.g., knowledge, abilities) into competences
porating several types of impact measures) that can that can be mobilized for action” (Béchard &
be employed to assess the level of impact of EE Grégoire, 2005: 115–116). This model focuses on
programs. This classification system draws on ear- methods emphasizing “communication and dis-
lier research on entrepreneurship (Block & Stumpf, cussion” (e.g., seminar, presentations, debates) and
1992) and educational impact (Kirkpatrick, 1959), and knowledge “production” (e.g., essays, modeling,
complements the impact dimension of the teaching portfolios).
model framework because it highlights a range of In contrast to the supply model, which emphasizes
impact measures from the beginning to the end of an a behaviorist perspective, both the demand and
EE program and beyond (see Figure 1 for a more competence models fit within the constructivist
approach to EE (Löbler, 2006; Neergaard et al., 2012). than purely conceptual; (b) peer-reviewed published
Behaviorism assumes learning is primarily the journal articles rather than working/conference
passive transfer of knowledge from the teacher to papers or unpublished material; (c) primarily fo-
the student, while constructivism assumes that cused on higher education in terms of entrepre-
learning involves actively participating in the con- neurship education (or elements thereof) and its
struction of new understanding. Often, pedagogical empirical impact on entrepreneurship outcomes
methods in EE in higher education are highly be- (broadly defined to include both attitudinal and
haviorist: lectures, homework, quizzes, and so forth, behavioral outcomes); (d) sampled recipients of EE
that focus on knowledge acquisition, rather than the from higher education institutions (rather than
deeply experiential approaches of the constructivist primary/secondary school, or nonhigher education
perspective (Neergaard et al., 2012). Béchard and level); and (e) analyzed primary rather than sec-
Grégoire (2005) apply these teaching models (sup- ondary data (Bae et al., 2014 and Martin et al., 2013
ply, demand, competence) in EE to a higher educa- were included because of their use of meta-analysis,
tion context. This allows us to classify and analyze but reviews or research agendas were excluded).
various pedagogical models and review empirical We also added searches for articles from bibli-
evidence on the link between EE pedagogy and ographies, key authors, and Google Scholar, as well
impact. as checking relevant references in recent reviews of
EE outcomes (e.g., Bae et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2013;
Rideout & Gray, 2013). We screened these additional
Systematic Review Methodology
candidates using our selection criteria. For exam-
We analyze 159 EE impact studies published from 1 ple, Martin et al. (2013) includes articles that are
February 2004 to 2 January 2016, continuing where unpublished or focus on schoolchildren, and were
Pittaway and Cope’s (2007) study left off. Following therefore excluded from our review.2 Two coauthors
best practice from the methodological (Tranfield, independently read the original collection of arti-
Denyer, & Smart, 2003), synthesis (Cooper, 1989; Fink, cles. We identified two first-order themes: (1) Types
2009), and entrepreneurship literature (Pittaway & of Impact and (2) Pedagogical Methods. We then
Cope, 2007; Wang & Chugh, 2014), we use a “sys- identified second-order themes by mapping our ar-
tematic review process.” Initially, we use the root ticles onto Henry et al.’s (2003) classification for im-
word “education” to search through all 11 entrepre- pact measures (Levels 1 to 5) and Béchard and
neurship journals listed in the Association of Busi- Grégoire’s (2005) framework of pedagogical models
ness Schools (ABS) as medium- and high-ranking (e.g., supply, demand, and competence). For exam-
entrepreneurship journals (Harvey, Kelly, Morris, & ple, traditional lectures and business plan writing
Rowlinson, 2010).1 We then use three databases (ABI suggested a supply model, active participation in
ProQuest, Emerald, and Science Direct) to search seminars, events or out-of-class projects reflected
for a broader range of keywords/search terms. The a demand model, and real-life entrepreneurial sit-
highest number of hits were from search terms in- uations indicated a competence model.
cluding “entrepreneurship education,” “higher ed-
ucation,” “pedagogy,” “educational interventions,”
REVIEW FINDINGS:
“graduate,” “undergraduate,” or Boolean variations
THEMES AND TRENDS
of these terms and an extensive range of others.
Only article citations that met the following cri- We begin by examining background characteristics
teria were included: (a) empirical in nature rather of our articles. This is useful when interpreting
general patterns, for example, the most prominent
1
journal outlets, country contexts, and types of
The ABS incorporates blind peer-reviewed journals for ranking students/graduates. We then analyze our articles
entrepreneurship journals and expert assessment of journal
quality (Harvey et al., 2010). Our 11 ABS journals include: Journal of regarding types of EE impact and relationships be-
Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Jour- tween types of impact and different pedagogical
nal of Small Business Management, International Small Business methods.
Journal, Small Business Economics, Entrepreneurship and Re-
gional Development, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Family
Business Review, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise De-
velopment, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour
2
and Research, and Venture Capital: An International Journal of Further examples of excluded articles (with reasons for exclu-
Entrepreneurial Finance. sion) are available from the authors.
Background Characteristics of the Data Set Al-Laham, 2007), dispositional optimism (Crane, 2014),
or satisfaction with the EE program (Rae & Woodier-
Our sample covers research published in 61 jour-
Harris, 2012).
nals, predominantly in entrepreneurship and small
Most articles in the review claim a positive link
business journals (39%) and management and edu-
between an EE program and subjective (e.g., personal
cation journals (47%). The eight journals publishing
change) or objective (e.g., business start-up activity)
the most EE impact articles account for 86 out of the
impact indicators (205 instances overall, see Table 1).
159 articles (54%).3
Regarding lower level impact indicators, the most
Overall, the majority of our articles were pub-
common indicator by far is entrepreneurial intentions
lished in the last 5 years and are dominated by
(Level 2 in our framework). Most of the reviewed arti-
European, undergraduate, and entrepreneurship/
cles (61 articles out of 81, 75%) report a positive link
business student samples. A majority are from 2011
between EE and participants’ start-up intentions.
onward (100 articles, 63%) and were not covered in
Nonetheless, several studies report mixed, negative,
previous reviews or meta-analyses (e.g., Martin
or nonsignificant/ambiguous results for the link with
et al., 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Data comes from
entrepreneurial intentions (18 articles or 22%, see
38 countries, dominated by Europe (81 articles, 51%,
Table 1). Of these, some articles suggest that EE re-
especially the UK with 28/18%); US (27/17%); Asia (26/
duces entrepreneurial intention for certain groups, for
16%); and then followed by Africa (16/10%); Australia
example, male German students (Packham, Jones,
(2/1%); and international comparisons (5/3%). Stu-
Miller, Pickernell, & Thomas, 2010), female Finish
dents in our sample are mostly undergraduate (53%)
students (Joensuu, Viljamaa, Varamäki & Tornikoski,
or postgraduate (12%), or alumni or unspecified
2013), Greek students (Petridou & Sarri, 2011), students
university students. The majority studied entrepre-
with previous entrepreneurial exposure (Fayolle,
neurship and business (35%) or business combina-
Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2006b), or students with
tion courses (24%).
a weaker entrepreneurial university culture (Wang
& Verzat, 2011). Our results suggest we know con-
Types of Impact siderably more about the direct EE-intentions re-
lationship in general than about the moderating
In the articles reviewed (see Table 1), we distinguish
role of gender (e.g., Joensuu et al., 2013; Shinnar,
between studies focusing largely on our frame-
Hsu, & Powell, 2014), culture- (e.g., Bernhofer & Han,
work’s (see Figure 1) lower level impact indicators
2014; Crane, 2014), or context-specific patterns
(typically short-term/subjective indicators at Levels
(e.g., Piperopoulos & Dimov, 2015; Turker & Selçuk,
1 and 2) and on higher level ones (typically longer
2009), with only nine studies focusing clearly on
term/objective indicators at Level 3 or above). More
such relationships.
specifically, the most common impact indicators are
Further, using a meta-analysis of 73 studies, Bae
related to lower level indicators of subjective/
et al. (2014) report a small but significantly positive
personal change: attitude (32 articles), skills and
EE–entrepreneurial intentions relationship, but that
knowledge (34 articles), perceived feasibility (42 ar-
cultural values act as a moderator. For example,
ticles), and entrepreneurial intention (81 articles). By
a high collectivistic culture or a low uncertainty
contrast, higher level indicators of longer term, ob-
avoidance culture reinforces the impact of EE. They
jective, or socioeconomic impact are much less fre-
also report that after controlling for pre-education
quent: 21 articles study start-ups and 8 articles
entrepreneurial intentions, the EE-intentions re-
consider venture performance, both typically within
lationship is not significant nor is gender a signifi-
10 years of the program. Last, 41 articles report re-
cant moderator. Although their research does not
sults not falling into any of these categories. These
focus specifically on the impact of EE in higher ed-
articles measure impact in terms of other variables,
ucation (they look at average effects across all ed-
such as subjective norms (Souitaris, Zerbinati, &
ucation levels), we include them here because their
findings provide some indicative evidence.
3
Education 1 Training (31 articles), The International Journal of Compared to entrepreneurial intentions (51%), far
Management Education (12), Journal of Small Business and fewer studies exist on the relationship between EE
Enterprise Development (10), International Journal of Entre- and other subjective impact indicators (Levels 1 and 2
preneurial Behavior & Research (9), Journal of Small Business
Management (7), International Entrepreneurship and Manage-
of our framework) including psychological variables
ment Journal (6), International Small Business Journal (6), such as attitude (20%, e.g., Boukamcha, 2015; Chang,
Academy of Management Learning & Education (5). Benamraoui, & Rieple, 2014; Vorley & Williams, 2016);
TABLE 1
282
Main Types of Impacts in Impact Studies
Personal change Business

2a. Skills and
knowledge 4/5. Performance &
1. Attitude (34 articles, 2b. Feasibility 2c. Entrepreneurial intention 3. Business start- Socio-econ. Other
(32 articles, 20%) 21%) (42 articles, 26%) (81 articles, 51%) up (21 articles, 13%) (8 articles, 5%) (41 articles, 26%)
Bakotic & Kruzic, 2010 Brink & Madsen, 2015 Abaho et al., 2015 P; Ahmed et al., 2010 N; Burrows & Wragg, Alarape 2007 P; Azim & Akbar, 2010 P;
P; Basu, 2010 P; M; Burrows & Armstrong, 2014 P; Almobaireek & Manolova, 2013 P; Connolly Donnellon et al., Bell, 2015, P;
Boukamcha, 2015 P; Wragg, 2013 P; Barakat et al., 2014 2012 P; Armstrong, 2014 P; et al., 2006 P; 2014 P; Gordon Burrows & Wragg,
Byabashaija & Chang & Rieple, P; Basu, 2010 P; Aslam et al., 2012 P; Azim & Daghbashyan & et al., 2012 P; Henry 2013 P; Crane, 2014
Katono, 2011 P; 2013 M; Chang et Boukamcha, Akbar, 2010 P; Bakotic & Hårsman, 2014 P; et al., 2004 P; Lange P; Crane & Meyer,
Canziani et al., 2015 al., 2014 P; Collins et 2015 P; Burrows & Kruzic, 2010 P; Barakat et Dominguinhos & et al., 2014 P; 2007 P; Cruz et al.,
P; Chang et al., 2014 al., 2006 PI; Wragg, 2013 P; al., 2014 P; Basu, 2010 P; Carvalho, 2009 P; Martin et al., 2013 P; 2009 P; Donnellon et
P; Fayolle & Gailly, DeTienne & Byabashaija & Bernhofer & Han, 2014 P; Donnellon et al., Matlay 2008 P; al., 2014 P;
2015 P; Fretschner & Chandler, 2004 P; Katono, 2011 P; Boukamcha, 2015 P; 2014 P; Dutta Voisey et al., 2006 P Gilbert, 2012 P;
Weber, 2013 P; Diaz-Casero et al., Diaz-Casero Byabashaija & Katono, et al., 2010 P; Gordon et al., 2012
Friedrich & Visser, 2012 PI; et al., 2012 PI; 2011 P; Canziani et al., 2015 Gielnik et al., P; Groenewald
2006 P; Gerba, 2012 Dominguinhos & Fayolle & Gailly, P; Chang & Rieple, 2013 M; 2015 P; Gilbert, 2012 P; Hamidi
P; Harris et al., 2007 Carvalho, 2009 P; 2015 P; Gerba, Cheng et al., 2009 N; 2012 P; Henry et al., 2008 P;
A; Henry et al., 2004 Faoite et al., 2004 N; 2012 P; Gielnik Coduras et al., 2008 P; et al., 2004 P; Harris & Gibson,
P; Hietanen, 2015 P; Galloway et al., et al., 2015 P; Crane, 2014 P; De Clercq et Jansen et al., 2015 2008 N; Hegarty,
Idogho & Barr, 2005 P; Garalis & Gilbert, 2012 P; al., 2013 P; De George & P; Karlsson & 2006 P; Heinonen et
2011 P; Izquierdo & Strazdiene, 2007 P; Harms, 2015 P; Fayolle, 2008 P; Diaz- Moberg, 2013 P; al., 2011 A;
Buelens, 2011 P; Gielnik et al., 2015 Harris et al., Casero et al., 2012 PI; Lange et al., 2014 Hussain et al., 2010
Karlsson & Moberg, P; Gilbert, 2012 P ; 2007A; Hattab, Farashah, 2013 P; Fayolle P; Martin et al., N; Kirby &
2013 P; Kassean et Gondim & Mutti, 2014 N; Heinonen et & Gailly, 2015 M; Fayolle et 2013 P; Ibrahim, 2011 P;
al., 2015 P; Kenny, 2011 A; Gundry et al., 2011 A; al., 2006a P; Fayolle et al., McAlexander Lackeus, 2014 P;
2015 P; Kirby & al., 2014 P; Harms, Henry et al., 2004 P; 2006b M; Florin et al., 2007 et al., 2009 P; Lanero et al., 2011 P;
Humayun, 2013 P; 2015 P; Henry et al., Izquierdo & P; Franco et al., 2010 P; Pei-Lee & Chen- Lean, 2012 P; Li &
Lanero et al., 2011 A; 2004 P; Jones & Buelens, 2011 P; Friedrich & Visser, 2006 P; Chen, 2008 P; Liu, 2011 P;
Academy of Management Learning & Education
Liñán, 2004 P; Jones, 2011 P; Jones & Jones, Gerba, 2012 P; Gielnik et Poblete & Lourenço &
Mentoor & Kirkwood et al., 2011 P; Karimi al., 2015 P; Gilbert, 2012 P; Amoros 2013 A; Jayawarna, 2011 PI;
Friedrich, 2007 N; 2014 P; Klapper, et al., 2016 P; Hamidi et al., 2008 P; Premand et al., Lourenço et al., 2013
Packham et al., 2010 2014 P; Lans et al., Karlsson & Hattab, 2014 P; Henry et al., 2016 P; Rauch & PI; Martin
M; Petridou & Sarri, 2013 A; Lee et al., Moberg, 2013 P; 2004 P; Heuer & Kolvereid, Hulsink, 2015 P; et al., 2013 P;
2011 M; Pittaway et 2005 P; Martin et al., Kassean et al., 2014 P; Hytti et al., 2010 A; Støren, 2014 A; Matlay, 2011 P;
al., 2015 P; Shariff et 2013 P; Morris et al., 2015 N; Kirkwood Ismail et al., 2009 P; Vincett & Farlow, McCrea, 2013 P;
al., 2010 P; Solesvik, 2013 P; Munoz et al., et al., 2014 P; Joensuu et al., 2013 N; Jones 2008 P; Wilson Millman et al.,
2013 P; Souitaris et 2011 P; Ohland et Lanero et al., 2011 P; et al., 2008 P; Jones et al., et al., 2009 P 2008 P; Mueller &
al., 2007 A ; al., 2004 P; Premand Laviolette 2011P; Bae et al., 2014 A; Anderson, 2014 P;
Stamboulis & et al., 2016 P; Tan & et al., 2012 P; Karimi et al., 2016 P; Newbold & Erwin,
Barlas, 2014 P; Ng, 2006 P; Thursby Lima et al., 2015 N; Karlsson & Moberg, 2013 P; 2014 P; Ohland
Vorley & Williams, et al., 2009 P; Tounès Liñán, 2004 P; Kassean et al., 2015 P ; Keat et al., 2004 P;
2016 P; Walter & et al., 2014 P; Mentoor & et al., 2011 P; Kirby & Pittaway et al.,
Dohse, 2012 P; Ulvenblad et al., Friedrich, 2007 N; Humayun, 2013 P; Lanero 2011 P; Pittaway
Walter et al., 2013 P 2013 PI; von Newbold & et al., 2011 P; Laviolette et et al., 2015 P;
June
(table continues)
TABLE 1
2017
Continued
Personal change Business
2a. Skills and
knowledge 4/5. Performance &
1. Attitude (34 articles, 2b. Feasibility 2c. Entrepreneurial intention 3. Business start- Socio-econ. Other
(32 articles, 20%) 21%) (42 articles, 26%) (81 articles, 51%) up (21 articles, 13%) (8 articles, 5%) (41 articles, 26%)
Graevenitz et al., Erwin, 2014 P; Pei- al., 2012 P; Lee et al., 2005 P; Premand et al., 2016
2010 M; Vorley & Lee & Chen-Chen, Lima et al., 2015 N; Liñán, P; Rae & Woodier-
Williams, 2016 P; 2008 P; 2004 P; Martin et al., 2013 P; Harris, 2012 PI;
Watts & Wray, Piperopoulos & Miller et al., 2009 P; Sánchez, 2011 P;
2012 P Dimov, 2015 P; Mohamad et al., 2014 N; Souitaris et al., 2007
Rauch & Hulsink, Mohamed et al., 2012 P; P; Tan & Ng, 2006 P;
2015 P; Saeed et al., Muofhe & du Toit, 2011 P; Vincett & Farlow,
2015 P; Sánchez, Newbold & Erwin, 2014 P; 2008 P; Wee, 2004 P;
2011 P; Shinnar et Packham et al., 2010 M; Man &
al., 2014 M; Petridou & Sarri, 2011 M; Farquharson, 2015
Solesvik, 2013 P; Piperopoulos & Dimov, P; Woodier-Harris,
Souitaris et al., 2007 2015 P; Raposo et al., 2008 2010 PI; Yusoff et al.,
A; Toledano & P; Rauch & Hulsink, 2015 P; 2012 P
Urbano, 2008 A; Sánchez, 2011 P; Shariff et
Wilson et al., 2007 P; al., 2010 P; Smith &
Wilson et al., 2009 P; Beasley, 2011 A; Solesvik,
Zainuddin & Rejab, 2013 P; Solesvik et al., 2013
2010 P; Zainuddin et P; Solesvik et al., 2014 P;
al., 2012 P Souitaris et al., 2007 P;
Støren, 2014 P; Turker &
Selcuk, 2009 P; Varamäki et
al., 2015 A; Von Graevenitz
et al., 2010 M; Walter &
Dohse, 2012 P; Walter et al.,
Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, and Walmsley
2013 M; Wang & Verzat,

2011 M; Westhead &
Solesvik, 2015 M; Wilson et
al., 2009 P; Yaghmaei et al.,
2015 PI; Zainuddin & Rejab,
2010 P; Zainuddin et al.,
2012 P; Zhang et al., 2014 P;
Zhao et al., 2005 P
P = 26 P = 25 P = 32 P = 61 P = 19 P=8 P = 34
PI = 0 PI = 3 PI = 1 PI = 2 PI = 0 PI = 0 PI = 4
M=2 M=3 M=1 M=9 M=0 M=0 M=0
N=1 N=1 N=4 N=5 N=0 N=0 N=2
A=3 A=2 A=4 A=4 A=2 A=0 A=1
Total = 32 Total = 34 Total = 42 Total = 81 Total = 21 Total = 8 Total = 41
Note: In first row, number of papers (and percentage of total) indicated. Percentages rounded up. Some articles consider more than one impact measure, and are, therefore,
283
included more than once in the table. Findings: P = positive; PI = positive indirect; M = mixed; N = negative; A = ambiguous/not significant.
perceived feasibility (26%, e.g., Rauch & Hulsink, 2015; and postgraduate (Dominguinhos & Carvalho, 2009)
or skills and knowledge (21%., e.g., Burrows & Wragg, EE programs on start-up rates at Level 3 of our
2013; Premand, Brodmann, Almeida, Grun, & Barouni, framework. Furthermore, Lange, Marram, Jawahar,
2016). Most studies suggest a positive link between Yong, and Bygrave (2014) provide a notable example
the program and these variables, but some articles of the long-term positive impact of EE on Babson
report results that are not significant or negative. graduate performance over a 25-year period, in-
These include, for example, the absence of a signifi- cluding a major economic contribution, for example,
cant link between EE and entrepreneurial attitudes 1,300 new full-time businesses were started, with
among Spanish students (Lanero, Vázquez, Gutiérrez, average annual revenues of $5.5 million and an av-
& Garcı́a, 2011), and a negative link between EE and at- erage of 27 employees. Last, using a meta-analytical
titudes toward entrepreneurship among South African approach (including pre- and posteducation data, N 5
students (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007), or perceived 16,657), Martin et al. (2013) found small but positive
entrepreneurial and management skills among relationships between EE and entrepreneurial out-
British students (Chang & Rieple, 2013). So again, comes incorporating nascent behavior, and start-up
limited studies explore the context-specificity of and venture performance (e.g., financial success and
EE’s impact. personal income). As with Bae et al., (2014), they do not
Novel ways of assessing EE impact in higher ed- specifically focus on higher education (they look at
ucation are limited. Only four studies explore emo- average effect across all educational levels), but we
tion or related approaches to assessing EE impact. include them here because their findings provide
For example, inspiration (not learning) emerges as some indicative evidence. Most of our higher impact
the most important benefit of EE, implying a “change studies report a positive link between EE and objec-
of heart” as well as a positive link to entrepreneurial tive indicators, but one suggests a relationship that is
intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007). A few other studies not significant. Using a sample of 2,827 university
also suggest a positive EE-outcomes link regarding graduates in Norway, Støren (2014) reports graduates
uncertainty and ambiguity tolerance (Lackéus, 2014); who have had EE are not more frequently self-
dispositional optimism (Crane 2014); and sense of employed than other graduates. Thus, our review
psychological ownership (Man & Farquharson, suggests high-impact studies are scarce and need not
2015). Similarly, four studies focus on EE impact show positive impact.
on intention-to-nascent start-up activity or entre- A final finding relates to the measurement meth-
preneurial identity. These suggest either a non- odology of the articles. Typically, articles use cross-
significant impact of EE on nascency (Souitaris et al., sectional survey methodology (68%). Nonetheless,
2007), or a positive link through a dynamic process of some notable exceptions employ a longitudinal
internal self-reflection and social engagement design and/or a control group. These generally dem-
(Donnellon, Ollila, & Middleton, 2014; Lackéus, 2014), onstrate a pattern of positive EE impact for entrepre-
and personal development, for example, a multiple neurial intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007), competencies
sense of responsibility, independent thinking, and (Sánchez, 2011), and start-ups (Karlsson & Moberg,
connecting to one’s own and others’ needs (Mueller & 2013). However, even in more methodologically rigor-
Anderson, 2014). Other emotion- or transition-based ous studies, a few still report a lack of significant re-
indicators are also completely absent from our results for entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Souitaris et al.,
view. For example, outside of our review, research 2007) or significantly negative impact on entrepre-
highlights EE’s role in developing the importance of neurial attitudes (Mentoor & Friedrich, 2007). Overall,
entrepreneurial passion (intense positive emotion the review suggests reasonable evidence of positive
and drive, see Cardon, Wincent, Singh, & Drnovsek, EE impact. This holds especially for entrepreneurial
2009), yet it is strikingly missing from the articles in attitudes and intentions (impact Levels 1 and 2 of our
our review. framework), but even here some examples demon-
Our review suggests 29 instances (corresponding to strate differential impact depending on context and
25 articles, see Table 1) focusing on objective impact the background of participants (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015;
indicators, typically over a longer timeframe corre- Fayolle et al., 2006b).
sponding to the higher Levels 3 (0–5 years), 4 (3–10
years), or 5 (over 10 years) in our framework. Because
Pedagogical Methods Underpinning Impact
these types of studies are limited in our review, some
examples are given. Such studies include the positive Next, we examine the extent of the relationship
impact of undergraduate (Pei-Lee & Chen-Chen, 2008) between the pedagogical methods used and the
TABLE 2
2017
Overview of Alternative Pedagogies, Comparison Studies, and Types of Impact
Types of Impactb
4/5. Perform.
2a. Skills and 2c. Entrepreneurial 3. Business &
1. Attitude knowledge 2b. Feasibility intention start-up socioecon. Other
Types of Supply Sánchez, 2011 P; Crane 2014 P; Crane 2014 P;

Teaching Shinnar et al., 2014 Sánchez 2011 P; Sánchez 2011 P
Model M Solesvik et al.,
Pedagogya 2013 P; Solesvik
et al., 2014 P
Supply- Fretschner & Weber, Henry et al., 2004 P; Henry et al., 2004 P; Hamidi et al., 2008 P; Henry et al., 2004 P Henry et al., Crane & Meyer, 2007
Demand 2013 P; Henry Klapper, 2014 P; Izquierdo & Henry et al., 2004 2004 P P; Hamidi et al.,
et al., 2004 P; Thursby et al., Buelens, 2011 P; P; Liñán, 2004 P; 2008 P
Izquierdo & 2009 P Liñán, 2004 P Shariff et al.,
Buelens, 2011 P; 2010 P
Liñán, 2004 P;
Shariff et al., 2010
P; Stamboulis &
Barlas, 2014 P
Demand Boukamcha, 2015 P; Lans et al., 2013 A; Boukamcha, 2015 P; Boukamcha, 2015 P; McAlexander et al., Bell, 2015 P; Millman
Fayolle & Gailly, Munoz et al., 2011 Fayolle & Gailly, Fayolle et al., 2009 P; Premand et al., 2008 P;
2015 P; Kirby & P; Premand et al., 2015 P; Souitaris 2006a P; Fayolle & et al., 2016 P Mueller &
Humayun, 2013 P; 2016 P et al., 2007 A Gailly, 2015 M; Anderson, 2014 P;
Souitaris et al., Kirby & Humayun, Pittaway et al.,
2007 A 2013 P; Miller et al., 2011 P; Premand
2009 P; Souitaris et al., 2016 P;
et al., 2007 P; Souitaris et al.,
Varamäki et al., 2007 P
2015 A
Nabi, Liñán, Fayolle, Krueger, and Walmsley
Demand- Friedrich & Visser, Burrows & Wragg, Abaho et al., 2015 P; Armstrong, 2014 P; Burrows & Wragg, Burrows & Wragg,
Compet. 2006 P; Harris 2013 P; Chang & Armstrong, 2014 P; Chang & Rieple, 2013 P; Dutta et al., 2013 P; Man &
et al., 2007 A; Rieple, 2013 M; Burrows & Wragg, 2013 M; De George 2010 P; Jansen Farquharson, 2015
Hietanen, 2015 P; DeTienne & 2013 P; Harms, & Fayolle, 2008 P; et al., 2015 P; P; Tang & Ng, 2006
Kasseann et al., Chandler, 2004 P; 2015 P; Harris Florin et al., 2007 P; Rauch & Hulsink, P; Wee, 2004 P
2015 P; Kenny, 2015 Garalis & et al., 2007 A; Jones Friedrich & Visser, 2015 P
P; Vorley & Strazdiene, 2007 P; & Jones, 2011 P; 2006 P; Kassean
Williams, 2016 P Gondim & Mutti, Kassean et al., et al., 2015 P;
2011 A; Harms, 2015 N; Kirkwood Piperopoulos &
2015 P; Jones & et al., 2014 P; Dimov, 2015 P;
Jones, 2011 P; Piperopoulos & Rauch & Hulsink,
Kirkwood et al., Dimov, 2015 P; 2015 P
2014 P; Morris Rauch & Hulsink,
et al., 2013 P; 2015 P
Tounès et al., 2014
P Vorley &
Williams, 2016 P
285
(table continues)
286
TABLE 2
Continued
Types of Impactb
4/5. Perform.
2a. Skills and 2c. Entrepreneurial 3. Business &
1. Attitude knowledge 2b. Feasibility intention start-up socioecon. Other
Compet. Chang et al., 2014 P; Brink & Madsen, Gielnik et al., 2015 P; Bae et al., 2014 A; Donnellon et al., Donnellon Donnellon et al.,
Pittaway et al., 2015 M; Chang Gilbert, 2012 P; Gielnik et al., 2015 2014 P; Gielnik et al., 2014 2014 P; Gordon
2015 P et al., 2014 P; Toledano & P; Gilbert, 2012 P et al., 2015 P; P; Gordon et al., 2012 P;
Gielnik et al., 2015 Urbano, 2008 A Gilbert, 2012 P; et al., 2012 Lackeus, 2014 P;
P; Gilbert, 2012 P Vincett & Farlow, P McCrea, 2013 P;
2008 P Pittaway et al.,
2015 P
Compar Walter & Dohse, Walter & Dohse, Lange et al., 2014 P Lange et al.,
isons 2012 P 2012 P; Wang & 2014 P
Verzat, 2011 M
Note: Articles without teaching model information not shown (13 for Level 1, 13 for L2a, 21 for L2b, 53 for L2c, 9 in L3, 4 in L4/5 and 22 in other). Some articles consider more than
one impact measure, and are, therefore, included more than once in the table.
Academy of Management Learning & Education
a
Based on our framework drawing on Béchard & Grégoire (2005).
b
Based on our framework drawing on Henry et al.’s (2003) classification. See Table 1 for details on the sign of impacts (positive, negative, mixed, or ambiguous). For the
comparison studies (Lange et al., 2014; Walter & Dohse 2012; Wang & Verzat 2011), supply models are consistently found to have less positive impact.
June
specific outcomes achieved (see Table 2). In our re- needs and interests. Moreover, these studies largely
view, studies that provide sufficient pedagogical suggest a positive link of this model’s pedagogy
detail are limited. Only 72 of our 159 articles (45%) with lower level impact indicators—our frame-
provide enough detail for us to determine their work’s Level 2 indicators (entrepreneurial intention,
pedagogical approach. The following section fo- Fayolle et al., 2006a; Souitaris et al., 2007), or other
cuses on these 72 articles. personal change, such as satisfaction with the
course or participation (Millman, Matlay, & Liu, 2008;
Pittaway et al., 2011).
Supply and Supply–Demand Model Pedagogy
Of the EE programs studied in the review, 27 are
Only five articles can be classified in terms of consistent with demand–competence model peda-
supply model pedagogy. These are positively re- gogy. They share the inclusion of an important ele-
lated to self-efficacy (Sánchez, 2011) and entrepre- ment of realism, such as real-life problems to
neurial intentions (e.g., Crane, 2014; Solesvik et al., be solved. This is powerful, because despite the
2013, 2014). For example, Sánchez (2011) focuses on challenges to the learner, the learning is more
transmitting knowledge to students so that they transferable to the real world (cf. outside our re-
“know about entrepreneurship,” and this mainly view, Neergaard et al. 2012). In the articles in this
behaviorist course has a positive impact on a range stream, the pedagogical methods are experi-
of student perceptions (at Level 2 of our framework, ential and entail working side by side with, for
e.g., intention, self-efficacy). This suggests a supply example, entrepreneurs (e.g., Chang & Rieple,
model link to lower level impact indicators, al- 2013); realistic entrepreneurial exercises (e.g.,
though Shinnar et al., (2014) find mixed results, pri- Gondim & Mutti, 2011); starting and running a
marily at Level 2, based on a moderating effect of “real” business (e.g., Burrows & Wragg, 2013); and
gender. In turn, programs that combine pedagogies problem-based learning (e.g., Kirkwood, Dwyer,
from the supply and demand model tend to be pos- & Gray, 2014). Again, these studies report a posi-
itively related to lower levels of our framework. Of tive link with lower level impact measures
the 12 supply–demand articles, only one (Henry (skills and knowledge, and feasibility, e.g., Jones
et al., 2004) addresses impact at higher levels. A & Jones, 2011). However, ambiguous or mixed re-
typical example of a supply–demand article is the sults are also found for intention and feasibility
program analyzed by Hamidi, Wennberg, and (Chang & Rieple, 2013; Harris, Gibson, & Taylor,
Berglund (2008) which despite concentrating on 2007). Overall, the pattern suggests a positive
knowledge transmission, includes some experien- link between demand and demand–competence
tial learning, in this case, creativity development model pedagogy and primarily lower level impact
exercises whereby the authors report a positive link indicators.
with entrepreneurial intentions.
Competence Model Pedagogy
Demand and Demand–Competence
Twelve articles fall into this category. Pedagogical
Model Pedagogy
methods entail students who are starting up busi-
Fifteen articles analyze interventions adhering to nesses by consulting external experts, typically for
demand model pedagogy. These typically focus legal, accounting, and sales help (Vincett & Farlow,
on short-term intensive experiential programs 2008) or dealing with real-world problems or oppor-
(e.g., Fayolle & Gailly, 2015), or longer experiential tunities in industry-engaged environments to en-
residential-based programs (e.g., Boukamcha, 2015). hance social interaction and deeper learning
They also include student-led entrepreneurship (Gilbert, 2012). These articles are positively related
clubs that allow students to work on collaborative to Level 2 (skill development, learning; Gilbert, 2012),
projects and gain awareness from experienced entre- Level 3 (actual start-ups; Gilbert, 2012; Vincett &
preneurs (Pittaway, Rodrı́guez-Falcon, Aiyegbayo, & Farlow, 2008), and Level 4 of our framework (positive
King, 2011), and a pedagogical method that goes changes in the person and business that run 5 years
beyond formal classroom teaching, incorporating, after the course: e.g., increase in social capital and
for example, network events and interaction with socioeconomic bonds; Gordon, Hamilton, & Jack,
entrepreneurs (Souitaris et al., 2007). All these stud- 2012). Given the limited number of articles in this
ies share a focus on exploration, discussion, and category, we see our results as indicative rather
experimentation, with a preoccupation on students’ than confirmatory.
Comparison Studies over the past 12 years (nearly two thirds of our 159
articles are published in the last 5 years), there is
Only three articles compare EE programs using
still a general focus on lower level, short-term,
competing pedagogical methods. Lange et al.
subjective impact indicators, especially the EE–
(2014) suggest that experiential courses (featuring
entrepreneurial intentions link (51%), and the lack of
demand and competence models) better predict
specifying even minimal pedagogical detail (55%).
multiple entrepreneurial behaviors: The rare be-
Hence, in general, we reconfirm the findings and
haviorist courses in their study (“how to write
repeat the calls of previous reviews for more re-
a business plan”) are essentially a negative pre-
search on entrepreneurial behavior (e.g., Pittaway &
dictor. They measure impact at the highest im-
Cope, 2007) and greater pedagogical detail (cf.
pact level of our framework (Level 5) and show
Martin et al., 2013). Our teaching model framework
a positive socioeconomic impact up to 25 years
urges a focus on higher level impacts such as start-
postprogram. Similarly, Walter and Dohse (2012) com-
ups, firm survival rates, business performance, and
pare active learning (constructivist) to traditional
societal contribution. Furthermore, it also means
learning (behaviorist) in locations with either
that future researchers provide detailed information
weak or already-strong entrepreneurial cultures,
about the pedagogical methods, so we can un-
finding the constructivist model to have a stronger
derstand the impact of pedagogical designs and
impact in terms of, for example, entrepreneurial
methods.
intention.
Extending previous reviews, our findings lead us
Overall, our review highlights that each category
to focus on new or underemphasized calls for future
of pedagogical methods (supply, demand, compe-
research. As a general pattern from our findings,
tence, hybrids) has some positive relationship with
progress on the previous calls outlined above has
the lower level impact indicators of our teaching
been slow, and EE impact research continues to be
model framework (e.g., attitudes and intentions).
limited. For example, in our review, it is rare to see
However, the demonstrated pattern of pedagogy
articles on novel EE impact measures or exploring
impact depends to an extent on the aims of re-
the reasons behind the contradictory findings in
searchers. Although articles featuring fewer experi- higher education-based EE research that go beyond
ential programs (supply, supply–demand, demand) statistical/artifactual reasons (cf. Martin et al., 2013;
focus more on basic or lower levels of our framework, Rideout & Gray, 2013). Table 3 presents our recom-
articles examining more experiential programs mendations for future research and these are dis-
(demand–competence and competence) also focus on cussed in more detail below.
impact at higher levels (e.g., actual start-ups and
socioeconomic impact over time). These latter studies
ask more from their programs and typically obtain Types of EE Impact
higher impact.
Focus on Novel Impact Indicators Related to
Emotion-Based Approaches
DISCUSSION
Given the dominance of entrepreneurial intentions
Guided by a unique, theory-driven teaching model as an impact indicator in our research, we suggest it
framework, we undertook a systematic review of is important to understand alternative impact mea-
a range of EE impacts in higher education, draw- sures. Although entrepreneurship is considered
ing on empirical evidence published since 2004. a “journey of the heart” and the importance of un-
This entailed a thematic analysis of the evidence derstanding entrepreneurial emotion (affect, emo-
using our adopted teaching model framework to tions, feelings), especially during the new venture
classify different types of outcomes and peda- creation process is acknowledged (Cardon, Foo,
gogies. We also explored the extent of the re- Shepherd, & Wiklund, 2012), there is surprisingly
lationship between pedagogical methods and little empirical research in our review that focuses
outcomes achieved. on emotion-based impact indicators. We therefore
urge scholars to pursue the following important
avenues.
Reaffirmation of Past Reviews
First, we are surprised by the scarcity of research
Despite the increase in the amount of research on EE that addresses emotion or affect. Given the growing
and entrepreneurial outcomes in higher education consensus on their importance in entrepreneurial
TABLE 3
Future Research Directions: Types of EE Impact and Pedagogical Models
Reaffirmation of past reviews
1. Ongoing requirement for increased research on higher level impact indicators by examining objective and higher level measures at
Levels 4 and 5 of our teaching model framework (see Figure 1) including entrepreneurial behavior.
2. More detail about the specifics of the pedagogy in impact studies.
New or underemphasized research directions
1. Types of Impact
A. Focus on novel impact indicators related to emotion-based and mind-set approaches
i. Explore role of EE program-derived inspiration in higher education as an impact indicator and a mediator between EE and a range of
other impact measures. For example, does inspiration mediate the EE-behavior relationship?
ii. Examine the development of the entrepreneurial mind-set in higher education such as dispositional optimism, uncertainty and
ambiguity tolerance.
B. Focus on impact indicators related to the intention-to-behavior transition
i. Build on Souitaris et al. (2007) to generate new knowledge about why there is (or is not) a transition from entrepreneurial intentions into
nascent or start-up behavior, specifically for example, why do some recipients of higher education-based EE with high entrepreneurial
intentions start up their own businesses after graduating, while others (despite high intentions) do not? What is the role of EE in higher
education in this process?
ii. Explore the development of entrepreneurial identity in higher education.
C. Explore contextual reasons for some contradictory findings in impact studies
i. Explore individuals’ background in terms of previous entrepreneurial exposure and pre-educational intentions to clarify the impact of
higher education-based EE.
ii. Directly examine if the impact of EE programs in higher education on a range of entrepreneurial outcomes is gender-specific and for
which outcomes.
iii.Consider contextual factors in higher education, e.g., type of course, type of institution.
iv. Expand existing research by looking at relationship between culture and national context in EE impact studies. For example, how do
cultural values moderate the impact of EE on outcomes? What outcomes are culture specific? Our teaching model framework could be
expanded to incorporate culture-specific frameworks (e.g., Hofstede, 2003; Schwartz, 2004).
v. Explore underexamined fast-growing/emerging countries/continents in our sample e.g., Brazil, Russia, Africa, and Australia.
vi. Examine double-moderator interaction effects. For example, does EE impact outcomes as a function of culture and gender?
2. Pedagogical methods underpinning impact
A. Investigate competence model-related pedagogical methods to determine if they are truly more effective than other models, and why
they are effective.
B. Building on our teaching model framework, directly compare and contrast a broad range of pedagogical models (supply, demand,
competence, and hybrids) in terms of their impact on a range of impact indicators (from Levels 1 to 5).
General recommendations
1. Explore EE at other levels, i.e. other than higher education.

2. Explore impact of university-based EE on stakeholders other than students and graduates. For example, university faculty, donors/
investors, and community.
thinking, for example, passion (Cardon et al., et al., 2007: 573). Thus, we consider it of central im-
2009, 2012; Gielnik et al., 2015), this is startling. portance as both an impact indicator in its own right
For example, only one empirical study in our sam- (i.e., if EE increases inspiration), and as a predictor
ple measures EE program-derived entrepreneurial of other impact measures. Indeed, Souitaris et al.
inspiration (Souitaris et al., 2007) that identifies (2007: 587) conclude: “Universities that want to as-
emotional inspiration (not learning or incubation sess the effectiveness of their programmes should
resources) as the most important EE “programme capture not only how much their students learn
benefit” with inspiration also positively related to about entrepreneurship or whether they are satis-
entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007). fied with the courses, but also whether they are in-
Moreover, they define it as “a change of hearts spired from the programme.” Despite its importance,
(emotion) and minds (motivation) evoked by events inspiration from EE programs in higher education
or inputs from the programme and directed towards remains an under-researched phenomenon and
considering becoming an entrepreneur” (Souitaris warrants further research attention.
A second key knowledge gap centers on impact identity, although we see hints that EE relates to
measures focusing on the development of the en- personal development beyond knowledge and skill
trepreneurial mind-set, defined here as cognitive acquisition, for example, by a change in thinking
phenomena deeper than intent4 (Krueger, 2007, 2015; style (Mueller & Anderson, 2014), internal self-
Lackéus, 2015). Few studies in our review even ref- reflection, and external engagement (Donnellon
erence this phenomenon. One rare example (Crane, et al., 2014; Lackéus, 2014). Given how little we
2014) suggests dispositional optimism as a key in- know of how intent becomes behavior, this is ex-
dicator of EE impact because of its self-regulatory ceptionally important for further research.
function and dealing with uncertainty and setbacks.
They find their program improves such optimism,
Explore Contextual Reasons for Contradictory
suggesting another fruitful avenue to explore. Sim-
Findings: Background, Gender, and Culture
ilarly, under OECD’s Entrepreneurship360 initia-
tive, Lackéus (2015) identifies the importance of As our results report, most papers suggest positive
uncertainty/ambiguity tolerance as impact indica- results between EE and a broad range of impact in-
tors for action-based EE programs that tie back to dicators, but with some contradictory studies (con-
the issue of emotions in entrepreneurial thinking. sistent with Martin et al., 2013). These authors advance
methodological concerns as an explanation of such
contradictory results; however, it would be remiss not
Focus on Impact Indicators Related to the
to also assess person- and context-specific factors.
Intention-to-Behavior Transition
Concerning student backgrounds, for those who
Our findings also suggest a paucity of studies of EE have less exposure to entrepreneurship, the general
in higher education that bridge the transition from effect tends to be positive, because they usually
intention to behavior, that is Levels 2 to 3 in our increase their entrepreneurial intention, attitudes,
teaching model framework. This is an important and self-efficacy by participating in the programs
avenue because intention does not always translate (e.g., Fayolle & Gailly, 2015; Fayolle, Gailly, & Lassas-
into entrepreneurial behavior and little is known Clerc, 2006a; Sánchez, 2011). In contrast, for those
about this transition. Indeed, Pittaway and Cope students who already have entrepreneurial experi-
(2007: 498) conclude “what is not known . . . is whether ence, family background, or high previous entrepre-
propensity or intentionality is turned into ‘entre- neurial intention, the effects are generally weaker and
preneurial behavior’, either in its broad sense or may even be negative (see, e.g., Fayolle et al., 2006b;
when focused narrowly on venture creation.” Al- Von Graevenitz, Harhoff, & Weber, 2010). Similarly,
though we re-emphasize their claim here, we also Bae et al. (2014) found that after controlling for pre-
extend their call, by suggesting two specific ave- educational entrepreneurial intentions, the relation-
nues that we encourage more scholars to pursue. ship between EE and postprogram entrepreneurial
First, our review suggests very little empirical intentions is not significant. However, given that Bae
attention on analyzing how entrepreneurial in- et al.’s (2014) meta-analysis did not focus specifically
tention translates into nascent or start-up activities. on higher education, we encourage more studies to
Although this relationship is examined in our re- focus on the role of student background in this context.
view regarding start-up activities for nascency after Regarding students’ background, gender-specific
an EE program (e.g., Souitaris et al., 2007), the lack of differences are also an important source of contra-
a positive significant relationship (albeit via entre- dictory findings. Few studies in our review focus on
preneurial intentions) suggests more research is the differential impact of EE for male and female
required on how intention follows through to action students/graduates, although those that did identify
(or not). For example, why do some recipients of EE gender-specific effects. For example, Wilson, Kickul,
with high entrepreneurial intentions start up their and Marlino (2007) show that EE has a stronger impact
own businesses after graduating, while others (de- on self-efficacy among females than males. Other
spite high intentions) do not? What is the role of studies also suggest the impact of EE on entrepre-
EE in this process? Second, very few studies in our neurial intentions is gender-specific (e.g., Joensuu
review analyze the development of entrepreneurial et al., 2013; Packham et al., 2010), although there are
too few studies to indicate if this favors males or
4
Education researchers often refer to “noncognitive skills” to
females. A controversial finding in Bae et al.’s (2014)
differentiate from more surface level learning such as facts and article concludes that gender does not signifi-
rote-learned skills (e.g., Krueger, 2015). cantly moderate the EE–entrepreneurial intention
relationship. However, Bae et al. (2014) did not spe- culture- and gender-specific findings. Packham et al.
cifically examine studies of EE in higher education (2010), for example, suggest findings that EE nega-
(as we do), but rather looked at averages from a meta- tively relates to entrepreneurial intentions for male
analysis across educational levels. Furthermore, German students. This double-moderator effect is
unlike Bae et al. (2014), we look at higher level impact consistent with limited research outside our review,
in terms of entrepreneurial behavior. Although we for example, Shneor, Camgöz, and Karapinar (2013),
did not find any reported gender-specific effects at who look at gender effects in two cultural settings,
this level, in our view, this does not mean that they do while analysis of Culture x Gender effects is absent
not exist, merely that studies have not specifically from the studies reviewed here.
focused on these effects. Considering our discussion on how student back-
Looking at further aspects of context (e.g., type of ground and context (the “audience” dimension of the
program: optional or compulsory; type of institution), teaching model; Fayolle & Gailly, 2008) seem to ex-
there is evidence from our review that initial positive plain contradictory findings in previous studies, fu-
attitudes toward entrepreneurship, which are, how- ture research in this field is especially promising.
ever, not fully formed, change once they are con- Knowing the background and the profile of the stu-
fronted with the complexities and pitfalls of business dents (e.g., prior entrepreneurial knowledge and
start-up during EE. In our review, Hytti, Stenholm, skills, motivators, gender) and context (e.g., type of
Heinonen, and Seikkula-Leino (2010) analyze the program, type of institution, program and country
motivations of students taking a compulsory EE pro- context) can also lead to better design and imple-
gram, finding that students with intrinsic motivation mentation of EE programs, and ultimately to more
report lower learning and less satisfaction with the efficient learning processes, environments, and
course (they expected more). Those taking the pro- hence, impact (Béchard & Grégoire, 2005; Fayolle &
gram with extrinsic motivation express a greater Gailly, 2008, 2015). It also opens the door for future
degree of satisfaction. Similarly, Petridou and Sarri impact research that is more mindful of potential
(2011) find that attitudes and intentions are raised by moderating factors and exploring a range of rela-
an EE program in a generalist university, but lowered ted questions. For example, to what extent is the im-
in a technology institute. The latter can be explained pact of EE programs in higher education on a range
by the realization of the complexities involved in of entrepreneurial outcomes gender-, culture-, and
starting up a technology venture. context-specific? Which impact indicators in our
Similarly, culture and national context are likely framework are dependent on moderator effects and
significant factors but rarely tested directly because which are more universally applicable? Our teach-
almost all studies in our review focus on a single- ing model framework could also be expanded to in-
country or culture (or at least do not investigate corporate culture-specific frameworks (e.g., Hofstede,
cultural differences). However, Bae et al.’s (2014) meta- 2003; Schwartz, 2004) allowing further consideration
analysis suggests some salient cultural dimensions, of the impact of higher education-based EE programs
at least with respect to entrepreneurial intentions. For in different international and cultural contexts.
example, some national or cultural contexts may be
higher on some cultural dimensions, on average, like
uncertainty avoidance (level of comfortableness with Pedagogical Methods Underpinning Impact
uncertainty and ambiguity; Hofstede, 2003, also see
Pedagogical Reasons for Contradictory Findings:
Krueger, Liñán, & Nabi’s, 2013 Special Issue in this
Differences in Pedagogical Methods
area). This suggests culture-specific moderators are
worthy of further consideration. In addition, our Our review suggests that all the pedagogical
sample is dominated by studies in the United King- methods (supply, demand, competence, hybrids)
dom, United States, and Asia, but only 5% are from the have positive impact at Levels 1 and 2 of our teach-
fast-growing emerging BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, ing model framework (e.g., attitudes and intentions).
and China) economies. There are no studies from However, our reviewed studies suggest that peda-
Russia or India, and Africa and Australia are also gogical methods based on competence are better
under-represented, suggesting such countries and suited for developing higher level impact. The evi-
continents are largely absent from studies. dence suggests that competence model pedagogy is
Moreover, culture is also likely to exhibit in- associated with both subjective measures at Level 2
teraction effects with other impact factors like gender (e.g., entrepreneurial intention), and objective ones
as implied in a handful of our articles regarding at Levels 3 (e.g., actual start-ups up to 5 years
postprogram) and 4 (longer term impact on business including hybrid versions (supply, supply–demand,
up to 10 years postprogram). To put it more simply, demand, demand–competence, competence). We
such deeper, more experiential pedagogies seem to urge scholars of future comparison studies to di-
have the most potential to have impact at higher rectly compare the impact of a broader range
levels because students focus on developing be- of pedagogical methods using a teaching model
havioral competency in solving problems in real-life framework. We believe that such a comparative
entrepreneurial situations. approach offers great opportunities to explore
Our findings suggest that the use of different ped- a number of theoretically, practically, and empiri-
agogical methods is at least partially responsible for cally meaningful research questions that may
the inconsistent findings in impact studies. However, help to explain the contradictory findings on the
given that our findings are based on a partial sample impact of higher education-based EE programs
of our population of articles, they are indicative and increase generalizability. For example, what
rather than confirmatory.5 To the best of our knowl- pedagogical models work for which types of im-
edge, this is the first systematic review that uses pact and in which contexts? We encourage future
a teaching model framework to assess the impact of researchers to rigorously isolate the impact of a ped-
EE. In our view, this provides novel and meaningful agogical intervention, controlling for the context- and
insights. EE makes strong claims to have significant person-specific factors outlined earlier.
impact and a strong bias toward experiential peda-
gogies. This review confirms that we need to focus
Limitations and General Recommendations
strongly in this direction. For example, it is essential
to expand research on competence-model-related Three limitations of our review are noteworthy. First,
pedagogical methods. Do they really have stronger we only cover EE in higher education, although EE
impact than other models, especially at higher levels also flourishes in high school programs, and adult
of our teaching model framework? How do they work (nondegree and non-academic) education. Focusing
regarding underlying processes? on other educational levels and means of delivery
outside higher education was outside the scope of
our research, but our findings do open the door for
Focus on Comparison Studies to Compare
assessing EE impact at other levels.
Pedagogical Methods
Second, data on whether an individual is exposed
Our review reveals very few comparison studies that to multiple training before, during, and after higher
directly compare the impact of different pedagogical education is limited. However, some articles in our
methods. Considering the growing number of EE review do use more sophisticated research designs,
programs and the growing demand to assess them, for example, adopting a pretest–posttest control
should we not ask for evidence of what pedagogical group design (e.g., Souitaris et al., 2007), or control-
methods work, desired impact, and actual impact? ling for prior entrepreneurial exposure (e.g., Fayolle
We thus encourage researchers to compare types & Gailly, 2015). Although focusing on methodologi-
of impact across different teaching pedagogical cal designs is outside the primary scope of our re-
methods. This is the only way for us to understand EE search and is covered elsewhere (e.g., Rideout &
impact in an incremental and meaningful way. Gray, 2013), we still include a range of articles with
Our review includes comparison studies that different methodologies in our research, and our
link EE pedagogical methods in higher education findings confirm those of existing reviews with an
to a broad range of impact measures using emphasis on methodological rigor (e.g., Martin et al.,
a teaching model framework. However, compari- 2013; Rideout & Gray, 2013). Rather than reiterate
son studies in our review only tend to compare the methodological weaknesses that other reviews
pedagogical methods in a limited way (e.g., supply found, we sought to identify perhaps less obvious,
versus competence; Lange et al., 2014; Walter & yet greatly promising new or underemphasized di-
Dohse, 2012; Wang & Verzat, 2011). In our review, rections for future research.
we identify five different pedagogical models Third, our review focuses on the recipients of
university-based EE programs and their entrepreneurial
5
attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviors. How-
Reduced from 159 to 72 due to insufficient pedagogical in-
formation from 55% of our articles. Further, we suspect that it
ever, such programs obviously also influence
could be extremely valuable to assess the quality of pedagogy, a wider set of stakeholders, such as the instructors
not just its intended characteristics. themselves and, in the case of field projects, the
individuals and organizations involved. For exam- Armstrong, C. E. 2014. I meant to do that! Manipulating entre-
ple, “real-life cases” where students work on various preneurial intentions through the power of simple plans.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 21(4):
consultancy tasks (such as market validation stud-
638–652.
ies). The impact of EE can be on entrepreneurial
behavior of staff and lecturers, when teaching en- Aslam, T. M., Awan, A. S., & Khan, T. M. 2012. Entrepreneurial
intentions among university students of Punjab, a province
trepreneurship influences academics to become en- of Pakistan. International Journal of Humanities and Social
gaged in it themselves (whether in commercializing Science, 2(14): 114–120.
research or in nonresearch-based entrepreneurial
Azim, M. T., & Akbar, M. M. 2010. Entrepreneurship education in
activity at the side of academic work). EE programs Bangladesh: A study based on program inputs. South Asian
where students engage in market validation studies Journal of Management, 17(4): 21–36.
and so forth also expose students to the entrepre- Bae, T. J., Qian, S., Miao, C., & Fiet, J. O. 2014. The relationship
neurial community. This can be built into higher between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
levels of our teaching model framework to examine intentions: A meta-analytic review. Entrepreneurship Theory
stakeholder impact. For example, we can assess the and Practice, 38(2): 217–254.
value of EE to university faculty, donors/investors, Bakotic, D., & Kruzic, D. 2010. Students’ perceptions and intentions
and communities at Levels 3, 4, and 5 of our frame- towards entrepreneurship: The empirical findings from
work (cf. Duval-Couetil, 2013). Croatia. The Business Review, Cambridge, 14(2): 209–215.
Barakat, S., Boddington, M., & Vyakarnam, S. 2014. Measuring
CONCLUSIONS entrepreneurial self-efficacy to understand the impact of
creative activities for learning innovation. International
While confirming the weaknesses in EE impact stud- Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 456–468.
ies (e.g., dominance on lower level attitudinal and Baptista, R., & Naia, A. 2015. Entrepreneurship education: A se-
intentionality impact measures, and a lack of key lective examination of the literature. Foundations and Trends
detail concerning pedagogy), we also identify three in Entrepreneurship, 11(5): 337–426.
main ways of moving forward. First, as indicated in Basu, A. 2010. Comparing entrepreneurial intentions among
Table 3, we add value by providing an up-to-date and students: The role of education and ethnic origin. AIMS In-
empirically rooted call for future research in higher ternational Journal of Management, 4(3): 163–176.
education. Second, by applying a teaching model Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. 2005. Understanding teaching
framework, we offer several intriguing and under- models in entrepreneurship for higher education. In P. Kÿro,
emphasized suggestions for improving EE research. & C. Carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of learning entrepreneur-
ship in a cross-cultural university context: 104–134. Tampere,
Last and relatedly, we provide some critical insights
Finland: Faculty of Education, University of Tampere.
into the reasons for the contradictory findings in EE
Béchard, J. P., & Grégoire, D. 2007. Archetypes of pedagogical
research (e.g., rarity of cross-cultural, gender-specific
innovation for entrepreneurship education: Model and il-
and pedagogical-comparison research) that can be lustrations. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in en-
further teased out through single studies/interven- trepreneurship education: Vol. 1: 261–284. Cheltenham, UK:
tions, so we can understand how EE really works in Edward Elgar Publishing.
theory and practice. Bell, R. 2015. Developing the next generation of entrepreneurs:
Giving students the opportunity to gain experience and
REFERENCES thrive. International Journal of Management Education,
13(1): 37–47.
Abaho, E., Olomi, D. R., & Urassa, G. C. 2015. Students’ entre-
Bernhofer, L., & Han, Z. 2014. Contextual factors and their effects
preneurial self-efficacy: Does the teaching method matter?
on future entrepreneurs in China: A comparative study of
Education 1 Training, 57(8/9): 908–923.
entrepreneurial intentions. International Journal of Tech-
Ahmed, I., Nawaz, M. M., Ahmad, Z., Shaukat, M. Z., Usman, A., & nology Management, 65(1-2-3-4): 125–150.
Rehman, W. 2010. Determinants of students’ entrepreneurial
career intentions: Evidence from business graduates. Euro- Block, Z., & Stumpf, S. A. 1992. Entrepreneurship education re-
pean Journal of Social Sciences, 15(2): 14–22. search: Experience and challenge. In D. L. Sexton, & J. D.
Kasarda (Eds.), The state-of-the-art of entrepreneurship:
Alarape, A. A. 2007. Entrepreneurship programs, operational ef-
17–42. Boston, MA: PWS-Kent Publishing Company.
ficiency and growth of small businesses. Journal of Enter-
prising Communities: People and Places in the Global Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levine, J. 2008. 2008
Economy, 1(3): 222–239. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Executive Report. Well-
esley, MA & London.
Almobaireek, W. N., & Manolova, T. S. 2012. Who wants to be an
entrepreneur? Entrepreneurial intentions among Saudi uni- Boukamcha, F. 2015. Impact of training on entrepreneurial in-
versity students. African Journal of Business Management, tention: An interactive cognitive perspective. European Busi-
6(11): 4029–4040. ness Review, 27(6): 593–616.
Brink, T., & Madsen, S. O. 2015. Entrepreneurial learning requires satisfaction with innovation behaviour and performance.
action on the meaning generated. International Journal of Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(3): 198–214.
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(5): 650–672. Daghbashyan, Z., & Hårsman, B. 2014. University choice and en-
Burrows, K., & Wragg, N. 2013. Introducing enterprise. Research trepreneurship. Small Business Economics, 42(4): 729–746.
into the practical aspects of introducing innovative enter- De Clercq, D., Honig, B., & Martin, B. 2013. The roles of learning
prise schemes as extra curricula activities in higher educa- orientation and passion for work in the formation of entre-
tion. Higher Education. Skills and Work-Based Learning, 3(3): preneurial intention. International Small Business Journal,
168–179. 31(6): 652–676.
Byabashaija, W., & Katono, I. 2011. The impact of college entre- De George, J. M., & Fayolle, A. 2008. Is entrepreneurial intention
preneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and inten- stable through time? First insights from a sample of French
tion to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Developmental students. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Entrepreneurship, 16(1): 127–144. Small Business, 5(1): 7–27.
Canziani, B., Welsh, D. H. B., Hsieh, Y, & Tullar, W. 2015. What DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. 2004. Opportunity identifi-
pedagogical methods impact students’ entrepreneurial pro- cation and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A
pensity? Journal of Small Business Strategy, 25(2): 11–42. pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of
Cardon, M. S., Wincent, J., Singh, J., & Drnovsek, M. 2009. The Management Learning & Education, 3(3): 242–257.
nature and experience of entrepreneurial passion. Academy Dı́az-Casero, J. C., Hernández-Mogollon, R., & Roldán, J. L. 2012. A
of Management Review, 34(3): 511–532. structural model of the antecedents to entrepreneurial ca-
pacity. International Small Business Journal, 30(8): 850–872.
Cardon, M. S., Foo, M., Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. 2012. Exploring
the heart: Entrepreneurial emotion is a hot topic. Entrepre- Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. 2008. Entrepre-
neurship Theory and Practice, 36(1): 1–10. neurial selection and success: Does education matter? Journal
of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 239–258.
Chang, J. Y. C., Benamraoui, A., & Rieple, A. 2014. Stimulating
learning about social entrepreneurship through income Dominguinhos, P. M. C., & Carvalho, L. M. C. 2009. Promoting
generation projects. International Journal of Entrepreneurial business creation through real world experience: Projecto
Behaviour & Research, 20(5): 417–437. Começar. Education 1 Training, 51(2): 150–169.
Chang, J., & Rieple, A. 2013. Assessing students’ entrepreneurial Donnellon, A., Ollila, S., & Middleton, K. W. 2014. Constructing
skills development in live projects. Journal of Small Business entrepreneurial identity in entrepreneurship education. In-
and Enterprise Development, 20(1): 225–241. ternational Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 490–499.
Cheng, Y. M., Chan, S. W., & Mahmood, A. 2009. The effectiveness Dutta, D. K., Li, J., & Merenda, M. 2010. Fostering entrepreneurship:
of entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. Education 1 Impact of specialization and diversity in education. The In-
Training, 51(7): 555–566. ternational Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
7(2): 163–179.
Coduras, A., Urbano, D., Rojas, Á., & Martı́nez, S. 2008. The re-
Duval-Couetil, N. 2013. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship
lationship between university support to entrepreneurship
education programs: Challenges and approaches. Journal of
with entrepreneurial activity in Spain: A GEM data based
Small Business Management, 51(3): 394–409.
analysis. International Advances in Economic Research,
14(4): 395–406. Faoite, D. D., Henry, C., Johnston, K., & Sijde, P. d. 2004. Entre-
preneurs’ attitudes to training and support initiatives: Evi-
Collins, L. A., Smith, A. J., & Hannon, P. D. 2006. Discovering en-
dence from Ireland and The Netherlands. Journal of Small
trepreneurship: An exploration of a tripartite approach to
Business and Enterprise Development, 11(4): 440–448.
developing entrepreneurial capacities. Journal of European
Industrial Training, 30(3): 188–205. Farashah, A. D. F. 2013. The process of impact of entrepreneurship
education and training on entrepreneurship perception and
Connolly, R., O’Gorman, B., & Bogue, J. 2006. An exploratory study intention: Study of educational system of Iran. Education 1
of the process by which recent graduate entrepreneurs Training, 55(8/9): 868–885.
(RGEs) become self-employed. Irish Journal of Management,
26(2): 185–210. Fayolle, A. 2013. Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship
education. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
Cooper, H. M. 1989. Integrating research: A guide for literature 25(7–8): 692–701.
reviews, (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; London: Sage
Publications. Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. 2008. From craft to science: Teaching
models and learning processes in entrepreneurship educa-
Crane, F. G. 2014. Measuring and enhancing dispositional opti- tion. Journal of European Industrial Training, 32(7): 569–593.
mism and entrepreneurial intent in the entrepreneurial
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. 2015. The impact of entrepreneurship
classroom: An Bahamian study. Journal of the Academy of
education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hys-
Business Education, 15: 94–104.
teresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Manage-
Crane, F., & Meyer, M. 2007. Teaching dispositional optimism in ment, 53(1): 75–93.
the entrepreneurial classroom. International Journal of En-
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. 2006a. Assessing the
trepreneurship Education, 5: 163–174.
impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new
Cruz, N. M., Escudero, A. I. R., Barahona, J. H., & Leitao, F. S. 2009. methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9):
The effect of entrepreneurship education programmes on 701–720.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. 2006b. Effect and counter- influence innovation in business. International Journal of
effect of entrepreneurship education and social context on stu- Management Education, 12(3): 529–538.
dent’s intentions. Estudios de Economı́a Aplicada, 24(2): 509–524. Hamidi, D. Y., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. 2008. Creativity in
Fink, A. 2009. Conducting research literature reviews: From the entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business and
Internet to paper, (3rd ed.). London, Los Angeles: SAGE. Enterprise Development, 15(2): 304–320.
Florin, J., Karri, R., & Rossiter, N. 2007. Fostering entrepreneurial Harms, R. 2015. Self-regulated learning, team learning and proj-
drive in business education: An attitudinal approach. Jour- ect performance in entrepreneurship education: Learning in
nal of Management Education, 31(1): 17–42. a lean startup environment. Technological Forecasting and
Franco, M., Haase, H., & Lautenschläger, A. 2010. Students’ en- Social Change, 100: 21–28.
trepreneurial intentions: An inter-regional comparison. Harris, M. L., & Gibson, S. G. 2008. Examining the entrepreneurial
Education 1 Training, 52(4): 260–275. attitudes of US business students. Education 1 Training,
Fretschner, M., & Weber, S. 2013. Measuring and understanding 50(7): 568–581.
the effects of entrepreneurial awareness education. Journal Harris, M. L., Gibson, S. G., & Taylor, S. R. 2007. Examining the im-
of Small Business Management, 51(3): 410–428. pact of small business institute participation on entrepreneur-
Friedrich, C., & Visser, K. 2006. Building human capital in difficult ial attitudes. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 18(2): 57–76.
environments: An empirical study of entrepreneurship education, Harvey, C., Kelly, A., Morris, H., & Rowlinson, M. 2010. The Asso-
self-esteem, and achievement in South Africa. Developmental ciation of Business Schools (ABS): Academic Journal Quality
Entrepreneurship: Adversity, Risk, and Isolation, 5: 355–378. Guide Version 4. UK: ABS.
Galloway, L., Anderson, M., Brown, W., & Wilson, L. 2005. Enter- Hattab, H. W. 2014. Impact of entrepreneurship education on en-
prise skills for the economy. Education 1 Training, 47(1): 7–17. trepreneurial intentions of university students in Egypt. The
Garalis, A., & Strazdiene, G. 2007. Entrepreneurial skills devel- Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1): 1–18.
opment via simulation business enterprise. Socialiniai Hegarty, C. 2006. It’s not an exact science: Teaching entrepre-
Tyrimai, 10: 39–48. neurship in Northern Ireland. Education 1 Training, 48(5):
Garavan, T. N., & O’Cinneide, B. 1994. Entrepreneurship educa- 322–335.
tion and training programmes: A review and evaluation – Heinonen, J., Hytti, U., & Stenholm, P. 2011. The role of creativity in
Part 1. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(8): 3–12. opportunity search and business idea creation. Education 1
Gerba, D. T. 2012. Impact of entrepreneurship education on Training, 53(8/9): 659–672.
entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. 2003. Entrepreneurship edu-
students in Ethiopia. African Journal of Economic and cation and training. Aldershot, Great Britain: Ashgate.
Management Studies, 3(2): 258–277. Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. 2005. Entrepreneurship
Gielnik, M. M., et al. 2015. Action and action-regulation in entre- education and training: Can entrepreneurship be taught?
preneurship: Evaluating a student training for promoting Education 1 Training, 47: 98–111.
entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Learning & Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. 2004. The effectiveness of
Education, 14(1): 69–94. training for new business creation. A longitudinal study.
Gilbert, D. H. 2012. From chalk and talk to walking the walk: Fa- International Small Business Journal, 22(3): 249–271.
cilitating dynamic learning contexts for entrepreneurship Heuer, A., & Kolvereid, L. 2014. Education in entrepreneurship and
students in fast-tracking innovations. Education 1 Training, the Theory of Planned Behavior. European Journal of Train-
54(2/3): 152–166. ing and Development, 38(6): 506–523.
Gondim, G. M. S., & Mutti, C. 2011. Affections in learning situa- Hietanen, L. 2015. Facilitating employees’ and students’ process
tions: A study of an entrepreneurship skills development towards nascent entrepreneurship. Education 1 Training,
course. Journal of Workplace Learning, 23(3): 195–208. 57(8/9): 964–976.
Gordon, I., Hamilton, E., & Jack, S. 2012. A study of a university-led Hofstede, G. H. 2003. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values,
entrepreneurship education programme for small business behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations.
owner/managers. Entrepreneurship and Regional Develop- Southand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
ment, 24(9-10): 767–805.
Hussain, J. G., Scott, J. M., & Matlay, H. 2010. The impact of en-
Greene, F. J., & Saridakis, G. 2008. The role of higher education trepreneurship education on succession in ethnic minority
skills and support in graduate self-employment. Studies in family firms. Education 1 Training, 52(8/9): 643–659.
Higher Education, 33(6): 653–672.
Hytti, U., Stenholm, P., Heinonen, J., & Seikkula-Leino, J. 2010.
Greene, P. G., Katz, J. A., & Johannisson, B. 2004. Entrepreneurship Perceived learning outcomes in entrepreneurship education:
education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, The impact of student motivation and team behaviour. Edu-
3: 238–241. cation 1 Training, 52(8/9): 587–606.
Groenewald, D. 2012. Assessment of teaching corporate entre- Idogho, P. O., & Barr, A. A. 2011. Entrepreneurship education and
preneurship to master’s level students. African Journal of small-scale business management skill development
Business Management, 6(7): 2484–2497. among students of Auchi Polytechnic Auchi, Edo State,
Gundry, L. K., Ofstein, L. F., & Kickul, J. R. 2014. Seeing around Nigeria. International Journal of Business and Management,
corners: How creativity skills in entrepreneurship education 6(3): 284–288.
Ismail, M., Khalid, S.A., Othman, M., Jusoff, H.K., Rahman, N.A., an experiment in Egypt. The International Entrepreneurship
& Kassim, K.M., 2009. Entrepreneurial intention among and Management Journal, 7(2): 181–193.
Malaysian undergraduates. International Journal of Business Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1959. Techniques for evaluating training pro-
and Management, 4(10): 54–60. grams. Journal of the American Society of Training Directors,
Izquierdo, E., & Buelens, M. 2011. Competing models of entrepre- 13: 3–26.
neurial intentions: The influence of entrepreneurial self-efficacy Kirkwood, J., Dwyer, K., & Gray, B. 2014. Students’ reflections on
and attitudes. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and the value of an entrepreneurship education. International
Small Business, 13(1): 75–91. Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 307–316.
Jack, S. L., & Anderson, R. 1998. Entrepreneurship education Klapper, R. G. 2014. A role for George Kelly’s repertory grids in
within the condition of entreprenology. Paper presented at entrepreneurship education? Evidence from the French and
the Proceedings of the Conference on Enterprise and Learn- Polish context. International Journal of Management Edu-
ing, Aberdeen, Scotland. cation, 12(3): 407–421.
Jansen, S., van de Zande, T., Brinkkemper, S., Stam, E., & Varma, V. Krueger, N. F. 2007. What lies beneath? The experiential essence
2015. How education, stimulation, and incubation encourage of entrepreneurial thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and
student entrepreneurship: Observations from MIT, IIIT, and Practice, 31(1): 123–138.
Utrecht University. International Journal of Management
Krueger, N. 2015. What do students learn from entrepreneurship
Education, 13(2): 170–181.
education? Entrepreneurship360 thematic paper. Paris,
Joensuu, S., Viljamaa, A., Varamäki, E., & Tornikoski, E. 2013. France: OECD.
Development of entrepreneurial intention in higher educa-
Krueger, N., Liñán, F., & Nabi, G. 2013. Cultural values and en-
tion and the effect of gender: A latent growth curve analysis.
trepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Develop-
Education 1 Training, 55(8/9): 781–803.
ment, 25(9–10): 703–707.
Jones, A., & Jones, P. 2011. “Making an impact”: A profile of a
Kuratko, D. F. 2005. The emergence of entrepreneurship educa-
business planning competition in a university. Education 1
tion: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship
Training, 53(8/9): 704–721.
Theory and Practice, 29(5): 577–598.
Jones, P., Jones, A., Packham, G., & Miller, C. 2008. Student atti-
Lackéus, M. 2014. An emotion based approach to assessing en-
tudes towards enterprise education in Poland: A positive
trepreneurial education. International Journal of Manage-
impact. Education 1 Training, 50(7): 597–614.
ment Education, 12(3): 374–396.
Jones, P., Miller, C., Jones, A., Packham, G., Pickernell, D., &
Lackéus, M. 2015. Entrepreneurship in education-What, why,
Zbierowski, P. 2011. Attitudes and motivations of Polish stu- when, how. Trento, Italy: Background paper for OECD-LEED.
dents towards entrepreneurial activity. Education 1 Train-
ing, 53(5): 416–432. Lanero, A., Vázquez, J. L., Gutiérrez, P., & Garcı́a, M. P. 2011. The
impact of entrepreneurship education in European univer-
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J. A., Lans, T., Chizari, M., & Mulder, M. sities: An intention-based approach analyzed in the Spanish
2016. The impact of entrepreneurship education: A study of area. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Market-
Iranian students’ entrepreneurial intentions and opportunity ing, 8(2): 111–130.
identification. Journal of Small Business Management, 54(1):
187–209. Lange, J., Marram, E., Jawahar, A. S., Yong, W., & Bygrave, W. 2014.
Does an entrepreneurship education have lasting value? A
Karlsson, T., & Moberg, K. 2013. Improving perceived entrepre- study of careers of 3,775 alumni. Journal of Business and En-
neurial abilities through education: Exploratory testing of an trepreneurship, 25(2): 1–31.
entrepreneurial self efficacy scale in a pre-post setting. In-
ternational Journal of Management Education, 11(1): 1–11. Lans, T., Gulikers, J., & Batterink, M. 2013. Moving beyond tradi-
tional measures of entrepreneurial intentions in a study
Kassean, H., Vanevenhoven, J., Liguori, E., & Winkel, D. E. 2015. among life-sciences students in The Netherlands. Research
Entrepreneurship education: A need for reflection, real-world in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(3): 259–274.
experience and action. International Journal of Entrepre-
Laviolette, E. M., Radu Lefebvre, M., & Brunel, O. 2012. The
neurial Behaviour & Research, 21(5): 690–708.
impact of story bound entrepreneurial role models on
Keat, O. Y., Selvarajah, C., & Meyer, D. 2011. Inclination towards self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International
entrepreneurship among university students: An empirical Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 18(6): 720–
study of Malaysian university students. International Journal 742.
of Business and Social Science, 2(4): 206–220.
Lean, J. 2012. Preparing for an uncertain future, the enterprising
Kenny, B. 2015. Meeting the entrepreneurial learning needs of PhD student. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise De-
professional athletes in career transition. International velopment, 19(3): 532–548.
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 21(2):
Lee, S. M., Chang, D., & Lim, S.-B. 2005. Impact of entrepreneurship
175–196.
education: A comparative study of the US and Korea. The
Kirby, D. A., & Humayun, H. 2013. Outcomes of an entrepreneur- International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
ship education programme: An empirical study in Egypt. 1(1): 27–43.
International Journal of Management, 30(3): 23–35.
Li, Z., & Liu, Y. 2011. Entrepreneurship education and employment
Kirby, D. A., & Ibrahim, N. 2011. Entrepreneurship education and performance: An empirical study in Chinese university.
the creation of an enterprise culture: Provisional results from Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 3(3): 195–203.
Lima, E., Lopes, R. M., Nassif, V., & da Silva, D. 2015. Opportunities and empirical insights. Journal of Small Business Manage-
to improve entrepreneurship education: Contributions con- ment, 51(3): 352–369.
sidering Brazilian challenges. Journal of Small Business
Mueller, S., & Anderson, A. R. 2014. Understanding the entrepre-
Management, 53(4): 1033–1051.
neurial learning process and its impact on students’ per-
Liñán, F. 2004. 2004. Intention-based models of entrepreneurship sonal development: A European perspective. International
education: 11–35. Urbino, Italy: Piccola Impresa/Small Business. Journal of Management Education, 12(3): 500–511.
Löbler, H. 2006. Learning entrepreneurship from a constructivist Munoz, C. A., Mosey, S., & Binks, M. 2011. Developing opportunity-
perspective. Technology Analysis and Strategic Manage- identification capabilities in the classroom: Visual evidence
ment, 18(1): 19–38. for changing mental frames. Academy of Management
Lourenço, F., & Jayawarna, D. 2011. Enterprise education: The Learning & Education, 10(2): 277–295.
effect of creativity on training outcomes. International Jour- Muofhe, N. J., & Du Toit, W. F. 2011. Entrepreneurial education’s
nal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(3): 224–244. and entrepreneurial role models’ influence on career choice:
Lourenço, F., Jones, O., & Jayawarna, D. 2013. Promoting sus- Original research. SA Journal of Human Resource Manage-
tainable development: The role of entrepreneurship educa- ment, 9(1): 1–15.
tion. International Small Business Journal, 31(8): 841–865. Nabi, G., & Liñán, F. 2011. Graduate entrepreneurship in the de-
Man, T. W. Y., & Farquharson, M. 2015. Psychological ownership veloping world: Intentions, education and development.
in team-based entrepreneurship education activities. In- Education 1 Training, 53(5): 325–334.
ternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, Neergaard, H., Tanggaard, L., Krueger, N., & Robinson, S. 2012.
21(4): 600–621. Pedagogical interventions in entrepreneurship from behav-
Martin, B. C., McNally, J. J., & Kay, M. J. 2013. Examining the for- iorism to existential learning. Proceedings. Dublin, Ireland:
mation of human capital in entrepreneurship: A meta- Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal Newbold, K. F., Jr., & Erwin, T. D. 2014. The education of entre-
of Business Venturing, 28(2): 211–224. preneurs: An instrument to measure entrepreneurial devel-
Matlay, H. 2008. The impact of entrepreneurship education on opment. Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, 26(1):
entrepreneurial outcomes. Journal of Small Business and 141–178.
Enterprise Development, 15(2): 382–396. Ohland, M. W., Frillman, S. A., Zhang, G., Brawner, C. E., & Miller,
Matlay, H. 2011. The influence of stakeholders on developing T. K. 2004. the effect of an entrepreneurship program on
enterprising graduates in UK HEIs. International Journal of GPA and retention. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4):
Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(2): 166–182. 293–301.
McAlexander, J., Nelson, R., & Bates, C. 2009. Developing an en- Packham, G., Jones, P., Miller, C., Pickernell, D., & Thomas, B.
trepreneurial education in a residential college: An explor- 2010. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship education: A com-
atory case study. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, parative analysis. Education 1 Training, 52(8/9): 568–586.
12(2): 1–14. Pei-Lee, T., & Chen-Chen, Y. 2008. Multimedia University’s ex-
McCrea, E. A. 2013. Adding to the pedagogical portfolio: perience in fostering and supporting undergraduate student
Launching a student business in a semester course. New technopreneurship programs in a triple helix model. Journal
England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 16(1): 31–39. of Technology Management in China, 3(1): 94–108.
Mentoor, E. R., & Friedrich, C. 2007. Is entrepreneurial education Petridou, E., & Sarri, K. 2011. Developing “potential entrepre-
at South African universities successful? An empirical ex- neurs” in higher education institutes. Journal of Enterprising
ample. Industry and Higher Education, 21(3): 221–232. Culture, 19(1): 79–99.
Miller, B. K., Bell, J. D., Palmer, M., & Gonzalez, A. 2009. Predictors Piperopoulos, P., & Dimov, D. 2015. Burst bubbles or build steam?
of entrepreneurial intentions: A quasi-experiment com- entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,
paring students enrolled in introductory management and and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business
entrepreneurship classes. Journal of Business and Entre- Management, 53(4): 970–985.
preneurship, 21(2): 39–62. Pittaway, L. A., Gazzard, J., Shore, A., & Williamson, T. 2015. Stu-
Millman, C., Matlay, H., & Liu, F. 2008. Entrepreneurship educa- dent clubs: Experiences in entrepreneurial learning. Entre-
tion in China: A case study approach. Journal of Small preneurship and Regional Development, 27(3-4): 127–153.
Business and Enterprise Development, 15(4): 802–815. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. 2007. Entrepreneurship education a sys-
Mohamad, N., Lim, H.-E., Yusof, N., Kassim, M., & Abdullah, H. tematic review of the evidence. International Small Business
2014. Estimating the choice of entrepreneurship as a career. Journal, 25(5): 479–510.
The case of University Utara. International Journal of Busi- Pittaway, L., Rodriguez-Falcon, E., Aiyegbayo, O., & King, A. 2011.
ness and Society, 15(1): 65–80. The role of entrepreneurship clubs and societies in entre-
Mohamed, Z., Rezai, G., Nasir Shamsudin, M., & Mu’az Mahmud, preneurial learning. International Small Business Journal,
M. 2012. Enhancing young graduates’ intention towards en- 29(1): 37–57.
trepreneurship development in Malaysia. Education 1 Poblete, C., & Amoros, J. E. 2013. University support in the de-
Training, 54(7): 605–618. velopment of regional entrepreneurial activity: An explor-
Morris, M. H., Webb, J. W., Fu, J., & Singhal, S. 2013. A competency- atory study from Chile. Investigaciones Regionales (26):
based perspective on entrepreneurship education: Conceptual 159–177.
Premand, P., Brodmann, S., Almeida, R., Grun, R., & Barouni, M. Solesvik, M., Westhead, P., & Matlay, H. 2014. Cultural factors and
2016. Entrepreneurship education and entry into self- entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurship ed-
employment among university graduates. World Develop- ucation. Education 1 Training, 56(8/9): 680–696.
ment, 77: 311–327.
Solomon, G. 2007. An examination of entrepreneurship education
Rae, D., & Woodier-Harris, N. 2012. International entrepreneur- in the United States. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
ship education: Postgraduate business student experiences Development, 14: 168–182.
of entrepreneurship education. Education 1 Training, 54(8/9):
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. 2007. Do entrepre-
639–656.
neurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of
Raposo, M. L. B., Ferreira, J. J. M., do Paço, A. M. F., & Rodrigues, science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
R. J. G. 2008. Propensity to firm creation: Empirical research inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing,
using structural equations. The International Entrepreneur- 22(4): 566–591.
ship and Management Journal, 4(4): 485–504.
Stamboulis, Y., & Barlas, A. 2014. Entrepreneurship education
Rauch, A., & Hulsink, W. 2015. Putting entrepreneurship educa- impact on student attitudes. International Journal of Man-
tion where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the agement Education, 12(3): 365–373.
impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
Støren, A. L. 2014. Entrepreneurship in higher education: Impacts
behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
on graduates’ entrepreneurial intentions, activity and learn-
14(2): 187–204.
ing outcome. Education 1 Training, 56(8/9): 795–813.
Rideout, E. C., & Gray, D. O. 2013. Does entrepreneurship educa-
Tang, S., & Ng, C. F. 2006. A problem-based learning approach to
tion really work? A review and methodological critique of the
entrepreneurship education. Education 1 Training, 48(6):
empirical literature on the effects of university-based entre-
416–428.
preneurship education. Journal of Small Business Manage-
ment, 51(3): 329–351. Thompson, P., Jones-Evans, D., & Kwong, C. C. Y. 2010. Education
and entrepreneurial activity: A comparison of White and
Saeed, S., Yousafzai, S. Y., Yani-De-Soriano, M., & Muffatto, M.
South Asian Men. International Small Business Journal, 28(2):
2015. The role of perceived university support in the forma-
147–162.
tion of students’ entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Small
Business Management, 53(4): 1127–1145. Thursby, M. C., Fuller, A. W., & Thursby, J. 2009. An integrated
approach to educating professionals for careers in in-
Sánchez, J. C. 2011. University training for entrepreneurial com-
novation. Academy of Management Learning & Education,
petencies: Its impact on intention of venture creation. The
8(3): 389–405.
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
7(2): 239–254. Toledano, N., & Urbano, D. 2008. Promoting entrepreneurial
mindsets at universities: A case study in the South of Spain.
Schwartz, S. H. 2004. Mapping and interpreting cultural dif-
European Journal of International Management, 2(4): 382–399.
ferences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P.
Ester, (Eds.), Comparing cultures, dimensions of culture in Tounés, A., Lassas-Clerc, N., & Fayolle, A. 2014. Perceived entre-
a comparative perspective: 43–73. Leiden, The Nether- preneurial competences tested by business plan peda-
lands: Brill. gogies. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business, 21(4): 541–557.
Shariff, A. M., Hasan, N. F. H. N., Mohamad, Z., & Jusoff, K. 2010.
The relationship between active teaching and learning with Tranfield, D. R., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a method-
graduate’s entrepreneurial intention and interest. Inter- ology for developing evidence-informed management
disciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of
2(1): 283–294. Management, 14: 207–222.
Shinnar, R. S., Hsu, D. K., & Powell, B. C. 2014. Self-efficacy, Turker, D., & Selçuk, S. 2009. Which factors affect entrepreneurial
entrepreneurial intentions, and gender: Assessing the intention of university students? Journal of European In-
impact of entrepreneurship education longitudinally. dustrial Training, 33(2): 142–159.
International Journal of Management Education, 12(3): Ulvenblad, P., Berggren, E., & Winborg, J. 2013. The role of en-
561–570. trepreneurship education and start-up experience for
Shneor, R., Camgöz, S. M., & Karapinar, P. B. 2013. The interaction handling communication and liability of newness. In-
between culture and sex in the formation of entrepreneurial ternational Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Re-
intentions. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, search, 19(2): 187–209.
25(9–10): 781–803. Varamäki, E., Joensuu, S., Tornikoski, E., & Viljamaa, A. 2015. The
Smith, K., & Beasley, M. 2011. Graduate entrepreneurs: In- development of entrepreneurial potential among higher ed-
tentions, barriers and solutions. Education 1 Training, ucation students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
53(8/9): 722–740. Development, 22(3): 563–589.
Solesvik, M. Z. 2013. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: Vincett, P. S., & Farlow, S. 2008. “Start-a-Business”: An experiment
Investigating the role of education major. Education 1 in education through entrepreneurship. Journal of Small
Training, 55(3): 253–271. Business and Enterprise Development, 15(2): 274–288.
Solesvik, M. Z., Westhead, P., Matlay, H., & Parsyak, V. N. 2013. Voisey, P., Gornall, L., Jones, P., & Thomas, B. 2006. The mea-
Entrepreneurial assets and mindsets. Education 1 Training, surement of success in a business incubation project. Journal
55(8/9): 748–762. of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 13(3): 454–468.
Von Graevenitz, G., Harhoff, D., & Weber, R. 2010. The effects of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and
entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Practice, 31(3): 387–406.
Organization, 76(1): 90–112.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., Marlino, D., Barbosa, S. D., & Griffiths, M. D.
Vorley, T., & Williams, N. 2016. Not just dialling it in: Examining 2009. An analysis of the role of gender and self-efficacy in
cognitive-based approaches in enterprise education using developing female entrepreneurial interest and behavior.
a smartphone application. Education 1 Training, 58(1): 45–60. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 14(2): 105–
Walter, S. G., & Dohse, D. 2012. Why mode and regional context 119.
matter for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Woodier-Harris, N. R. 2010. Evaluating the impact of SPEED on
and Regional Development, 24(9–10): 807–835. students’ career choices: A pilot study. Education 1 Training,
Walter, S. G., Parboteeah, K. P., & Walter, A. 2013. University de- 52(6/7): 463–476.
partments and self-employment intentions of business stu- Yaghmaei, O., Ardestani, H. S., Ghasemi, I., Baraeinezhad, S., &
dents: A cross-level analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Parsa, R. 2015. Relationship among influential factors of en-
Practice, 37(2): 175–200. trepreneurial intention: An associational study. Modern Ap-
Wang, C. L., & Chugh, H. 2014. Entrepreneurial learning: Past plied Science, 9(9): 114–121.
research and future challenges. International Journal of Yusoff, M. N. H., Nasir, W. N. B. W., & Zainol, F. A. B. 2012.
Management Reviews, 16(1): 24–61. Assessing the impact of knowledge of government business
Wang, Y., & Verzat, C. 2011. Generalist or specific studies for support services on propensity of new graduates to venture
engineering entrepreneurs? Comparison of French engi- into business. International Journal of Business and Man-
neering students’ trajectories in two different curricula. agement, 7(16): 106–117.
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 18(2): Zainuddin, M. N., & Rejab, M. R. M. 2010. Assessing “ME genera-
366–383. tion’s” entrepreneurship degree programmes in Malaysia.
Watts, C. A., & Wray, K. 2012. Using toolkits to achieve STEM enter- Education 1 Training, 52(6/7): 508–527.
prise learning outcomes. Education 1 Training, 54(4): 259–277. Zainuddin, M. N., Rahim, M. F. A., & Rejab, M. R. M. 2012. Re-
Wee, K. N. L. 2004. A problem-based learning approach in entre- construct creative destruction knowledge through creative
preneurship education: Promoting authentic entrepreneurial disruption. On the Horizon, 20(1): 34–48.
learning. International Journal of Technology Management, Zhang, Y., Duysters, G., & Cloodt, M. 2014. The role of entrepre-
28(7-8): 685–701. neurship education as a predictor of university students’
Westhead, P., & Solesvik, M. Z. 2015. Entrepreneurship education entrepreneurial intention. The International Entrepreneur-
and entrepreneurial intention: Do female students benefit? ship and Management Journal, 10(3): 623–641.
International Small Business Journal, 34(8): 979–1003. Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. 2005. The mediating role of self-
Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. 2007. Gender, entrepreneurial self- efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. The
efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1265–1272.
Ghulam Nabi (PhD, University of Central Lancashire, UK) is a senior lecturer in entrepreneurship
and organizational behavior, Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, UK. Current
research interests include student-to-entrepreneur transition, entrepreneurial intentions, en-
trepreneurship education, and the role of mentoring in entrepreneurial development. Ghulam
has published over 18 articles in leading international journals.
Francisco Liñán (PhD, University of Seville, Spain) is professor of entrepreneurship and in-
novation at Anglia Ruskin University (UK), and University of Seville. Francisco’s main research
interests include entrepreneurship as a process, entrepreneurial intentions, and culture’s role in
entrepreneurship. He has published over 25 articles in international journals and edited books.
Alain Fayolle (PhD, University of Lyon, France) is a professor and Research Centre director, EM
Lyon Business School, France. Alain is also the Academy of Management ENT Division Chair. His
research interests are entrepreneurship education, corporate entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial
intention, and behavior.
Norris Krueger (PhD, The Ohio State University, US) is a senior research fellow of the Center for
Management and Entrepreneurship, University of Phoenix. Norris is passionate about de-
veloping entrepreneurial thinking, the most cited author on entrepreneurial intentions, and is
now researching deeper cognitive phenomena (e.g., “neuroentrepreneurship”). He is equally
passionate about growing entrepreneurial ecosystems (Entrepreneurship Northwest; organized
Startup Weekends, & 1 Million Cups).
Andreas Walmsley (PhD, Leeds Beckett University, UK) is an associate professor at Plymouth
University, UK. Andreas’s current research revolves around entrepreneurship education, entre-
preneurship in tourism and hospitality, and employment in the service industries.
Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy of
Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
LITERATUR REVIEW
23 Type : Journal
Title : Social Cognitive Theory, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and ntrepreneurial
Intentions: Tools to Maximize the Effectiveness of Formal
Entrepreneurship Education and Address the Decline in Entrepreneurial
Activity1
Authors & : Carmen England Bayrón, Ed.D. Universidad de Puerto Rico
Department carmen.england@upr.edu
Journal : Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013
Ringkasan :
Terlepas dari peran penting yang dimainkan oleh kewirausahaan dalam ekonomi suatu negara, data
dari program BLS Business Dynamics Dinamika (BED) mengungkapkan bahwa jumlah perusahaan
bisnis baru pada Maret 2010 lebih rendah daripada tahun-tahun lainnya (Biro Statistik Tenaga Kerja
AS, 2012). Data BED juga menunjukkan bahwa jumlah pekerjaan yang dibuat oleh perusahaan dalam
setahun terakhir telah menurun. Temuan-temuan ini menjadi perhatian dan membutuhkan
tindakan segera untuk membantu merangsang ekonomi AS. Urgensi untuk mendidik kaum muda
dan melatih mereka dalam berwirausaha adalah nyata, mendorong mereka untuk mengejar karir
kewirausahaan untuk meningkatkan efisiensi ekonomi, membawa inovasi ke pasar, menciptakan
lapangan kerja baru, dan mempertahankan tingkat pekerjaan (Carswell, 2001). Tinjauan pustaka ini
berasal dari kebutuhan untuk mengatasi penurunan aktivitas kewirausahaan yang memaksimalkan
efektivitas pendidikan kewirausahaan formal. Literatur yang ada mengungkapkan perlunya program
pendidikan untuk menangani implikasi penelitian di bidang kewirausahaan. Penasihat karir dan
penasihat karir mengajar, melatih dan mendidik kompetensi sangat membantu untuk pendidikan
kewirausahaan. Tujuan dari makalah ini adalah untuk memeriksa literatur yang ada pada Teori
Kognitif Sosial, kewaspadaan kewirausahaan, dan kompetensi dan niat kewirausahaan, untuk
memahami keadaan lapangan saat ini, merancang kerangka teoritis baru untuk membantu
menentukan strategi pengajaran terbaik dan mengidentifikasi karir kompetensi konselor dan
kontribusi yang mungkin untuk bidang pendidikan kewirausahaan. Efikasi diri yang berwirausaha
diusulkan sebagai suatu konstruk yang berguna untuk meningkatkan niat kewirausahaan dan
kompetensi siswa. Teori kognitif sosial, self-efficacy, dan self-efficacy kewirausahaan dimasukkan ke
dalam kerangka teoritis terapan untuk meningkatkan efektivitas pendidikan kewirausahaan formal.
Secara khusus, model ini menghubungkan empat sumber self-efficacy dengan self-efficacy dan
wirausaha; yang mengarah pada hasil program pendidikan wirausaha yang efektif.
Penulis menyarankan penggunaan konstruk self-efficacy kewirausahaan dalam kurikulum

(lokakarya) dan kegiatan ekstrakurikuler untuk memberikan pengaruh yang besar pada siswa; agar
siswa dapat bertindak berdasarkan pikiran, perasaan, dan perilaku wirausaha mereka. Jika siswa
memvisualisasikan diri dengan kontrol pribadi yang tinggi sebagai wirausahawan (tugas dan peran)
mungkin mereka akan memilih jalur karier wirausaha. Pengajar kewirausahaan (termasuk konselor
karir) dapat mengambil manfaat dari penerapan konstruk self-efficacy ke proses pembelajaran.
Tingkat self-efficacy yang tinggi dapat membantu mereka menghasilkan lebih banyak wirausahawan
(Bird 1988; Boyd & Vozikis 1994), sebuah tujuan penting dari pendidikan kewirausahaan dan
ekonomi nasional. ESE adalah konstruk yang menjanjikan, dengan potensi untuk memprediksi
kinerja kewirausahaan dan untuk meningkatkan laju kegiatan kewirausahaan melalui pelatihan
(Mueller & Goic 2003; Zhao, Seibert dkk. 2005; Florin, Karri et al. 2007)
Strategi lain yang dapat membantu meningkatkan self-efficacy, niat dan pembelajaran
kewirausahaan pada siswa adalah paparan kepada orang lain dengan pengalaman kewirausahaan
sebelumnya; ini dapat memberikan wirausahawan yang sedang berkembang dengan pengetahuan
yang bermanfaat (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994, Chen, Green & Crick, 1998, Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) dan
mengurangi ketidakpastian mereka (Bandura, 1978). Proses pembelajaran yang harus
dikembangkan oleh entrepreneur untuk kepercayaan diri siswa dalam karir tersebut didasarkan
pada pengetahuan dan keterampilan yang dikembangkan dalam program (De Clercq & Arenius,
2006).
Pendidik (konselor karir) perlu memaksimalkan penggunaan self-efficacy kewirausahaan dalam

kurikulum karena merupakan anteseden yang mempengaruhi pilihan kewirausahaan (Boyd &
Vozikis 1994; Krueger & Brazeal 1994); tingkat self-efficacy yang tinggi secara konsekuen akan
mengarah pada munculnya perilaku kewirausahaan dan pada akhirnya menuju tindakan
kewirausahaan (McGee, Peterson dkk., 2009, Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). Program kewirausahaan
dan konselor karir harus mencapai kombinasi faktor yang tepat dari atribut pribadi, sifat, latar
belakang, pengalaman, dan disposisi yang dibutuhkan siswa untuk mengejar ide menjadi wirausaha
(Krueger Jr dan Brazeal 1994; Krueger Jr, Reilly dkk. 2000; Shane , Locke dkk. 2003; Baron 2004;
Arenius dan Minniti, 2005).
Hasil penelitian sampai saat ini menunjukkan bahwa SCT, self-efficacy, self-efficacy kewirausahaan,
niat kewirausahaan dan pengukuran kompetensi kewirausahaan dapat membantu meningkatkan
pengajaran kewirausahaan, dan mengajar akan meningkatkan pembelajaran (Angelo & Cross,
1993). Budaya penilaian dalam program dan kursus kewirausahaan dapat membantu meningkatkan
pembelajaran, memantau hasil, tumbuh melalui refleksi diri dan umpan balik, bereksperimen
dengan modifikasi dan menyesuaikan praktik terbaik, memetakan tren dan paradigma (Hytti &
Kuopusjarve, 2004). SCT, self-efficacy, dan konstruk self-efficacy kewirausahaan mungkin dapat
membantu menunjukkan hubungan yang jelas antara pendidikan kewirausahaan dan siswa menjadi
wirausaha, dan meningkatkan proporsi orang yang memulai bisnis setelah lulus. Penulis
menyarakan penelitian selanjutnya dilakukan untuk menetapkan apakah self-efficacy
kewirausahaan berhubungan positif dengan niat siswa untuk memulai bisnis mereka sendiri (Chen,
Greene, dan Crick, 1998) dan tentang kepribadian dan faktor lingkungan dimasukkan dalam self-
efficacy kewirausahaan ; prediktor kuat dari niat kewirausahaan dan, akhirnya, tindakan (Bird 1988;
Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Serta mempelajari interaksi antara belajar dan kewirausahaan (kompetensi
konselor karir); efektivitas pendidikan kewirausahaan; dan hubungan antara pendidikan
kewirausahaan dan siswa menjadi pengusaha (Hostager & Decker, 1999 dan Luthje & Franke, 2003).

Social Cognitive Theory
Social Cognitive Theory, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial

Intentions: Tools to Maximize the Effectiveness of Formal Entrepreneurship
Education and Address the Decline in Entrepreneurial Activity1
Carmen England Bayrón, Ed.D.

Universidad de Puerto Rico
carmen.england@upr.edu
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine existing literature on Social Cognitive Theory,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial competencies and intentions, to understand
the current state of the field, design a new theoretical framework to help determine the best
teaching strategies and identify career counselor competencies and possible contributions to
the entrepreneurial education field. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is proposed as a useful
construct to increase the entrepreneurial intentions and competencies of students. Social
cognitive theory, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy are incorporated into an applied
theoretical framework to improve the effectiveness of formal entrepreneurship education.
Specifically, the model links the four sources of self-efficacy with entrepreneurial self-efficacy
and entrepreneurial intentions; which lead to effective entrepreneurial education program
outcomes.
Keywords: self-efficacy, entrepreneurship, education, career counselors
Resumen
El objetivo de este escrito es examinar la literatura existente sobre la Teoría Social

Cognoscitiva, la autoeficacia emprendedora, y las competencias e intenciones emprendedoras,
entender el estado corriente del campo, diseñar un nuevo marco teórico para ayudar
determinar las mejores estrategias de enseñanza e identificar las competencias del consejero de
carrera y posibles contribuciones al campo de la educación emprendedora. La autoeficacia
emprendedora se propone como un constructo para aumentar las intenciones emprendedoras
y las competencias de los estudiantes. La teoría social cognoscitiva, la autoeficacia, y la
autoeficacia emprendedora son incorporados en un marco teórico para aplicado para mejorar
la eficacia de la educación emprendedora formal. Específicamente, el enlace de las cuatro
fuentes de la autoeficacia con la autoeficacia emprendedora e intenciones emprendedoras; las
cuales conducen a resultados efectivos de un programa de educación emprendedora.
Palabras clave: autoeficacia, emprendedor, educación, consejeros de carrera
1
Sometido: 15 de agosto de 2013
Sometido a Revisión: 22 de agosto de 2013
Aceptado: 29 de octubre de 2013
Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 66

B
lanchflower (2000) indicates that entrepreneurship is an important factor for the
development of an economy. Hindle & Rushworth (2002) established that
entrepreneurship is a driver of economic growth and national prosperity and the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) states on its webpage that “entrepreneurship plays a vital role
in the growth of the U.S. economy” (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). BLS is the primary
source for information on U.S. labor markets as well as the federal government’s data-
collection agency on new businesses and job creation.
Despite the important role that entrepreneurship plays in a nation’s economy, data from
the BLS’s Business Employment Dynamics (BED) program reveals that the number of new
business establishments in March 2010 was lower than any other year (U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 2012). BED data also shows that the number of jobs created by establishments in the
last year has decreased. These findings concern and require immediate action in order to help
stimulate the U.S. economy. The urgency to educate young people and train them in
entrepreneurship is evident, encouraging them to pursue an entrepreneurial career to
increased economy efficiency, bring innovation to market, create new job opportunities, and
sustain employment levels (Carswell, 2001). This literature review stems from the need to
address the decline of entrepreneurship activity maximizing the effectiveness of formal
entrepreneurship education. The existing literature reveals the need for education programs to
deal with the implications of research in the entrepreneurship field. Career counselors and
career advisors teaching, training and educating competencies are helpful for the
entrepreneurial education.
Young, (1997) observed that in entrepreneurship three education researches areas
concern, social-cognitive, psycho-cognitive, and spiritualist or ethical. He suggests that the
implications of these dimensions for entrepreneurship education are not drawn out yet, in spite
of previous calls to integrate them into the research agenda (e.g., Young, 1997). I suggest to
focus on developing a research agenda on the social-cognitive preoccupations of Social
Cognitive Theory (1986) to help entrepreneurship educators maximize the effectiveness of
formal entrepreneurial education that helps to address the decline in entrepreneurial activity.
Linking learning, teaching entrepreneurship effectively and Entrepreneurship
The important role of higher education in stimulating job creators is discussed in
Article 7 of “The World Declaration on Higher Education for the Twenty-First Century: Vision
and Action,” adopted in 1998 by The World Conference on Higher Education. This article
states that “developing entrepreneurial skills and initiative should become major concerns of
higher education, in order to facilitate employability of graduates who will increasingly be called
upon to be not only job seekers but also and above all to become job creators. Thus,
universities should offer their students the opportunity to fully develop their potential abilities
with a sense of social responsibility, educating them to become full participants in a democratic
society and promoters of changes that will foster equity, justice, and national economic well-
being.”
The professional counselors are professionals of higher education institutions that can
contribute to the students development as job seekers and job creators. According to the
National Association of Colleges and Employers career counselors can contribute to
entrepreneurship education with the following competencies:

 Needs assessment
 Program/workshop design and delivery
 Researching, evaluating, and integrating information
 Effective teaching strategies
 Career mentoring
 Work with individuals an d groups
 Work with diverse populations
 Use of technology for delivery of content
Career counselors are professionals that can contribute to development of the new
generation of entrepreneurs in today’s economy and also create new knowledge of the
interaction between learning and entrepreneurship and effective entrepreneurship teaching
strategies.
Solomon, et al., (1994, cited in Kuratko, 2003) inform that by the early 1980s over
300 universities were reporting courses in entrepreneurship and small business, and by the
1990s that number had grown to 1,050 schools. Cone (in 2008) mentioned that more than
2,000 institutions offer courses in entrepreneurship. The Kauffman Foundation (2010) indicates
that formal programs (majors, minors and certificates) in entrepreneurship have more than
quadrupled, from 104 in 1975, to more than 500 in 2006. But at present there is very limited
knowledge and understanding of the interaction between learning and entrepreneurship, and
the process remains one of the most neglected areas of entrepreneurial research and
understanding. There are also gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education (Soloman, Duffy & Torabishy, 2002, Clark, Davis, & Harnish, 1984;
Wallenstein in 1993). Some research shows that four years after having taken entrepreneurship
courses, interest in creating new ventures tends to dissipate (Whitlock and Master, 1996) and
others observed that no clear relationship has been demonstrated between entrepreneurship
education and students becoming entrepreneurs (Hostager & Decker, 1999 and Luthje &
Franke, 2003).
In order to address this situation, first I want to point out the words of Angelo &
Cross (1993) because of the timeless of those words with the current state of affairs. These
researchers said that the most promising ways to improve learning is to improve teaching.
Kuratko pointed out that “In the midst of this huge expansion of courses, the challenge of
teaching entrepreneurship more effectively remains.”
Some authors reported that it is not clear what to teach in entrepreneurship, and
there is a lack of detailed consideration of how entrepreneurs learn (Garavan & Cinnedide,
1994 and Solomon, 2007); others reported that there is no substantive agreement about what
entrepreneurship means in educational settings, and that the appropriate content of programs
is under permanent discussion (Gibb, 2002). More recently some authors identified that the
components of a balanced entrepreneurship program should contain the following: (a) lectures
on business concepts; (b) business-planning practices, including competitions and coaching; (c)
interaction with practitioners and networking opportunities; and (d) university support such as
market-research resources, meeting spaces, seed funding, patenting advice, etc. (Al-Laham,

Souitaris & Zerbinati, 2007). But to improve entrepreneurship learning is not sufficient. With
these components having been identified, it is necessary to prove the existence of a link
between learning and entrepreneurship, and in teaching entrepreneurship more effectively.
The Role of Social Cognitive Theory

The Social Learning theory of Albert Bandura (1986) establishes that the environment causes
behavior, but behavior also causes the environment. Bandura calls this concept reciprocal
determinism, where the world and the behavior of persons are mutually caused. Bandura
believes that human conduct must be explained in terms of the reciprocal interaction between
cognitive, behavioral, and environmental determinants.
The social cognitive theory of Bandura (SCT) centers on the concepts of reinforcement
and observation, giving more importance to the mental internal processes as well as to the
interaction of the subject with others. The SCT postulates that observation and imitation is
given across models that can be parents, educators, and friends, and can even be heroes taken
from television. The only requirement for learning can be that one person observes another
individual, or models behavior to carry out a certain conduct. The observation and imitation
intervene upon the cognitive factors and help the subject decide whether or not the observed
behavior is to be imitated. The cognitive factors are the capacity of reflection and symbolization
as well as the prevention of consequences based on processes of comparison, generalization,
and auto-evaluation. One of the aims of the SCT is the development of the self-evaluation and
the self-reinforcement constructs. According to Bandura, individuals possess an auto-system
that allows them to measure the control on their own thoughts, feelings, motivations and
actions. This system exercises self-regulation to enable individuals with aptitude to influence
their own cognitive processes and actions and in this way to alter their environment.
If we applied the concepts I have just discussed to entrepreneurship education
programs, we can infer that the student’s observation and interaction with previous
entrepreneurs can reinforce entrepreneurial behavior. The observation and imitation of former
entrepreneurs will intervene upon the cognitive factors of the students and can help them –
students or alumni – to decide if the observed behaviors should be imitated or not. SCT can be
helpful to the entrepreneurial behavior field, but educators (career counselors) need to apply
this theory to the curriculum (workshops, extracurricular activities) and to students’
interactions.
Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a construct defined by Albert Bandura (1982) as “self-judgment of one’s
ability to perform a task in a specific domain.” The belief in self-efficacy provides a great
influence on human beings, since they act on their thoughts, feelings and behaviors (Bandura,
1995). Garcia et al., 1991 defines self-efficacy as “self-appraisal of one’s ability to accomplish a
task and one’s confidence in possessing the skills needed to perform that task.” The SCT
explains that an individual’s sense of self-efficacy can be influenced through four processes:
enactive mastery, role modeling and vicarious experience, social persuasion, and judgments of
one’s own physiological states, such as arousal and anxiety (Bandura, 1986). The self-efficacy
construct influences an individual’s choice of activities, goal levels, persistence, and performance

in a range of contexts. Self-efficacy is a motivational factor that educational research from the
social cognitive approach establishes. Bandura mentioned that self-efficacy affects some of the
factors that predict motivation.
Krueger et al (2000) pointed out that experience influences the entrepreneur’s
intention, and that there is also a direct relationship between entrepreneur’s experience on
perceived feasibility and perceived desirability; feasibility and desirability existing in the
environment that influences the entrepreneur’s experience, so perceived feasibility and
perceived desirability partially serve as key elements in forming entrepreneurial experiences and
entrepreneurial intentions. Krueger et al (2000) observed that entrepreneurs’ experiences
directly influence the entrepreneur’s intention to start a new venture.
Self-efficacy has an important effect on the choice of behavior setting. Individuals tend to
choose situations in which they anticipate high personal control but avoid situations in which
they anticipate low control (Bandura 1977, 1982; Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Wood & Bandura,
1989, 2012). Consequently, to the extent that people plan and choose their career paths, they
assess their personal capabilities against the requirements of different occupations (Chen,
Greene & Crick, 1998). This assessment of their personal capabilities therefore directs people
to prepare for and enter occupations in which they feel successful, but at the same time avoid
occupations in which they feel a lack of competence (Betz and Hackett 1981, 1986, Miura 1987;
Scherer et al. 1989). Empirical evidence establishes that entrepreneurial self-efficacy was
positively related to students’ intentions to start their own business (Chen, Greene & Crick,
1998).
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Intentions
In the past, some authors have provided evidence of the increasing emphasis on the role
of self-efficacy in the study of entrepreneurship, including areas such as entrepreneurial career
preferences, intentionality, and performance (Boyd & Vozikis 1994; Chandler & Jansen 1992;
Gartner 1989; Krueger & Brazeal 1994; Scherer et at., 1989). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE)
is defined as an individual’s confidence in his or her ability to successfully perform
entrepreneurial roles and tasks (Chen, Greene et al. 1998; De Noble, Jung et.al. 1999). ESE is
also defined as a construct measuring a person’s belief in his ability to successfully launch an
entrepreneurial venture (McGee, Peterson et al., 2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a
variable useful for increasing students’ convictions that they can execute the necessary
entrepreneurial behavior to produce the desired result; a new venture. The measure of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been widely adopted for identifying entrepreneurial intentions
and consequently entrepreneurial conduct, and for investigating how education and training can
be used to improve entrepreneurial action (Føleide, 2011). Perceived desirability constitutes the
primary component of entrepreneurial intention (Liñan et al. 2011, p. 205). Azjen (1991)
observed that three attitudinal antecedents are necessary to trigger the action of starting a
business: (a) the desire to start the business, (b) the belief that the business contributes to well-
being of the society, and that (c) success is possible.
I suggested the use of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy construct in the curriculum
(workshops) and extracurricular activities to provide a great influence on the students; they will
act on their thoughts, feelings and entrepreneur behaviors. If the students visualize themselves
with high personal control as entrepreneurs (task and roles) maybe they will choose an
entrepreneurial career path. Entrepreneurship educators (include career counselors) can

benefit from the implementation of self-efficacy construct to the learning process. A high level
of entrepreneurial self-efficacy can help them produce more entrepreneurs (Bird 1988; Boyd &
Vozikis 1994), an important goal of entrepreneurship education and national economies. ESE is
a promising construct, with the potential to predict entrepreneurial performance and for
improving the rate of entrepreneurial activities through training (Mueller & Goic 2003; Zhao,
Seibert et al. 2005; Florin, Karri et al. 2007).
Personality and environmental factors are incorporated into entrepreneurial self-
efficacy, and are thought to be strong predictors of entrepreneurial intentions and ultimately
action (Bird 1988; Boyd and Vozikis 1994). Forbes 2005; Kolvereid and Isaksen 2006 observed
that nevertheless, the construct remains empirically underdeveloped and many scholars have
called for refinements of the construct. The development of the ESE construct can help to
improve the entrepreneurial learning process and increase the rate of entrepreneurial activities.
The assessment of personality and explanation of the educational environmental factors of
entrepreneurship programs can improve the students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and predict
entrepreneurial intentions. As a strategy, business schools, entrepreneurship programs and
career counselors can assess the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of their students and develop
special activities for students with the highest entrepreneurial self-efficacy levels, and also
activities for students with low entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This strategy can help to attend to
the special learning and entrepreneurial needs of all students.
Another strategy that can help increase entrepreneurial self-efficacy, intentions and
learning in students is the exposure to others with previous entrepreneurial experience; this
can provide emerging entrepreneurs with useful knowledge (Boyd & Vozikis, 1994, Chen,
Green & Crick, 1998, Krueger & Brazeal, 1994) and reduce their uncertainties (Bandura, 1978).
The learning process that entrepreneurs have to develop for students’ confidence in that career
is based on the knowledge and skills developed in the program (De Clercq & Arenius, 2006).
Educators (career counselors) need to maximize the use of entrepreneurial self-efficacy
in the curriculum because it is an antecedent that influences the entrepreneurial choice (Boyd &
Vozikis 1994; Krueger & Brazeal 1994); high levels of self-efficacy would consequently lead to
emergingnt entrepreneurial behavior and ultimately to entrepreneurial action (McGee, Peterson
et al., 2009, Chen, Greene & Crick, 1998). Entrepreneurship programs and career counselors
need to reach the right factor combinations of personal attributes, traits, background,
experiences and disposition that students need to pursue the idea of becoming entrepreneurs
(Krueger Jr and Brazeal 1994; Krueger Jr, Reilly et al. 2000; Shane, Locke et al. 2003; Baron
2004; Arenius and Minniti, 2005).
More research on personal attributes, such as traits, background, experiences and
disposition, and factors that influence an individual to pursue the idea of becoming an
entrepreneur and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Boyd & Vozikis 1994; Krueger & Brazeal 1994)
can help improve the learning process and the entrepreneur career choice. Longitudinal studies
in entrepreneurship programs can help provide evidence of the impact of entrepreneurial
programs in entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions, and according to the results, allow for
the necessary adjustments to be made to the program.
Entrepreneurial Competencies and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy

Entrepreneurial competencies that are developed in educational programs have been

neglected for a long time, yet they are essential variables in entrepreneurial development
(Inyang & Enough, 2009). The literature points out that areas in which entrepreneurs need to
acquire greater competencies are: managing time effectively, communication, human resources
management, business ethics, social responsibility, developing effective leadership qualities,
decision making skills, marketing and financial management. Entrepreneurship programs and
career counselors need to evaluate and assess their instructional approach and curriculum to
determine if they include all entrepreneurial competencies. They also need to evaluate if the
instructional approach and curriculum have a positive impact on the development of
entrepreneurial competencies (outcomes) and the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of their students
(Izquierdo & Buyens, 2008). The entrepreneurship program can use the Theory of Planned
Behavior, generally used to for the assessment of their programs as a framework (Ajzen, 1991);
and then make the necessary adjustments.
Bandura (1986) claims that a high level of self-efficacy may influence students’ choice of
activities, goal levels, persistence and performance in a range of contexts. This increase of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy can also positively influence the students’ choice of entrepreneurial
activities, entrepreneurial goal levels, entrepreneurial persistence and performance in an
entrepreneurship context. Theoretical and empirical literature expose why some exploit
opportunities and some do not (Begley & Boyd, 1987; Brockhaus, 1980; Cooper & Dunkleberg,
1987, cited in De Carolis, & Saparito, 2006).
Sexton & Bowman, 1984). The majority of this literature proposes that psychological variables,
personality traits and demographic factors may distinguish entrepreneurial activity. Yet, the
results of these findings are equivocal (Brockhaus & Robert Horowitz, 1986; Low & MacMillan,
1988; Shaver & Scott, 1991).
Entrepreneurship education can benefit from teaching techniques that incorporate
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intentions and competencies. I consider that
techniques that incorporate SCT and the principal sources of self-efficacy are important, and
that they will help students develop positive judgments about their self-capacities, obtain
successful and vicarious experiences, receive verbal persuasion or social persuasion and manage
their somatic and emotional state. I believe this will lead to an increase in their entrepreneurial
self-efficacy, be positively related with entrepreneurial intentions and those entrepreneurial
intentions, in turn, can increase the entrepreneurial activities needed in the economy, and thus
propose the following framework for use in experimental design and assessment of these
outcomes for entrepreneurship programs:

Figure 1: A Theoretical Framework for assessing Entrepreneurship Education Effectiveness
The research to date suggests that SCT, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,

entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial competencies measurement can help improve
entrepreneurship teaching, and teaching will improve learning (Angelo & Cross, 1993).
A culture of assessment in entrepreneurship programs and courses can help to improve
learning, monitoring outcomes, growing through self-reflection and feedback, experimenting by
modification and adjusting best practices, mapping the trends and paradigms (Hytti &
Kuopusjarve, 2004). SCT, self-efficacy, and the entrepreneurial self-efficacy construct might be
able to help demonstrate a clear relationship between entrepreneurship education and students
becoming entrepreneurs, and increase the proportion of people starting a business after
graduation.
The research suggests that after the completion of an entrepreneurship education
program, students may have higher entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Izquierdo & Buyens, 2008).
Career counselors can studied the role of generalized self-efficacy, entrepreneurial self-
efficacy in entrepreneurial education programs in order to enhance the level of student
entrepreneurial intentions and competencies could be designed as follows in Table 1:
Students General Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial

Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy Intentions Competencies
Entrepreneurship Pre/Post Pre/Post Pre/Post Pre/Post
Students
Regular Students Pre/Post Pre/Post Pre/Post Pre/Post

Table 1: Proposed Research Design
This design would test the following theoretical propositions developed herein, such as:
P1: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy of students who complete an entrepreneurship program
will be higher than students who do not complete such a program.
P2: Entrepreneurial intentions of students who complete an entrepreneurship program
will be higher than students who do not complete such a program.
P3: Entrepreneurial competencies of students who complete an entrepreneurship
program will be higher than students who do not complete such a program.
Implications and Conclusion

Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) and entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be very
useful as applied tools for developing entrepreneurship learning, competencies and intentions.
Regarding future research, I believe it is necessary to establish whether entrepreneurial
self-efficacy is positively related to students’ intentions to start their own business (Chen,
Greene, and Crick,1998) and about personality and environmental factors incorporated in
entrepreneurial self-efficacy; a strong predictor of entrepreneurial intentions and, ultimately, of
action (Bird 1988; Boyd & Vozikis, 1994). Also, it is necessary to study the interaction between
learning and entrepreneurship (career counselor competencies); the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education; and the relationship between entrepreneurship education and
students becoming entrepreneurs (Hostager & Decker, 1999 and Luthje & Franke, 2003).
References
Arenius, P. & Minniti, M. (2005). "Perceptual Variables and Nascent Entrepreneurship," Small
Business Economics, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 233-247, 02. Retrived from
http://business2.fiu.edu/1660397/www/Participation%20in%20Entrepreneurship/Arenius_
Minniti_2005.pdf on July 4, 2012.
Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioral Research and Therapy,
1(4), 237-269. doi: 10.1016/0146-6402(78)90012-7
Bandura, A. (1986a). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1986b). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of
Clinical and Social Psychology, 4, 359-373. doi: 10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (Ed.) (1995), Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 87-99. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87
Bandura, A. (2012). Psychologists and Their Theories for Students. Ed. Kristine Krapp. Vol. 1.
Detroit: Gale, 2005. 39-66. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web

Baron, A. R. (2004) The Cognitive Perspective: A valuable tool for answering basic
entrepreneurship's Why questions. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(2), 221-239. doi:
10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00008-9
Betz, N. & Hackett, G. (1983). The relationship of mathematics self-efficacy expectations to the
selection of science-based college majors. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 23, 329-345.
Bird, B. (1988). Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: The case for intention. Academy of
Management Review, 13(3), 442-453.doi: 10.5465/AMR.1988.4306970
Boyd, N. G., & Vozikis, G. S. (1994). The influences of self-efficacy on the development of
entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurial Theory and Practice, 18(4), 63-
90.
Blanchflower DG (2000) Self-employment in OECD countries. Labour Econ 7(5):471–505. doi:
10.1016/S0927-5371(00)00011-7
"Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor. (2012, July). Retrieved from:
http://www.bls.gov/
Chandler, G. N. & Jansen, E, 1992. Self-perceived competence and venture performance.
Journal of Business Ve/imrrn^, 7(3):223-236.
Clark, B. W., Davis, C. H., & Harnish, V. C. (1984). Do courses in entrepreneurship aid in new
venture creation? Journal of Small Business Management. 2226-31.
Cone, J. (2008). Teaching entrepreneurship in colleges and universities: How (and why) anew
academic field is being built. Kansas City: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation
.http://www.kauffman.org/items.cfm?itemID=716.
De Clercq, D. & Arenius, P. (2006). The roe of knowledge in business start-up activity.
International Small Business Journal, 24(4), 339-358.
De Noble, A., D. Jung, et al. (1999). "Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the development of a
measure andits relationship to entrepreneurial intentions and actions." Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice 18 (4): 63-77.
Florin, J., R. Karri, et al. (2007). Fostering entrepreneurial drive in business education: An
attidudinal approach. Journal of Management Education. 31 (1): 17.
Føleide, L. (2011). The importance of self-efficacy to empreneurial success. Retrieved from:
http://bi.academia.edu/LarsFoleide/Papers/947637/Entrepreneurial_Self-Efficacy on July,
4, 2012.
Forbes, D. (2005). The Effects of Strategic Decision Making on Entrepreneurial Self Efficacy.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practices. 29 (5): 599-626. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-
6520.2005.00100.x
Frederick, H., & Carswell, P. (2001). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor New Zealand
2001. Auckland: New Zealand Centre for Innovation and Entrepreneurship.
Gartner, W.B. (1989). Some suggestions for research on entrepreneurial traits and
characteristics. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Fall, 14(l), 27-38.
Garcia, T., McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., & Smith, D. A. 1991. A manual for the use of the
Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Tech. Rep. No. 91-B-004). Ann Arbor,
MI: The University of Michigan, School of Education.
Gibb, A. (2002), "In Pursuit of a New Enterprise and entrepreneurship Paradigm for Learning:
Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things new combinations of
knowledge", International Journal of Management Review, Vol.4 No.3, pp.223-69.
doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00086

Hindle, K., & Rushworth, S. 2002. Sensis™ Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: GEM Australia
2002. Melbourne: Swinburne University Press.
Hostager, T.J. Decker, R.L. (1999) The Effects of an Entrepreneurship Program on Achievement
Motivation. A Preliminary Study ed. SBIDA, San Francisco, CA: Small Business Institute
Director's Association (http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1999/SBIDA/sbi28.htm).
Izquierdo, E. & Buyens, D. (2008). Impact Assessment of an Entrepreneurship Course on
Students’ Entrepreneurial Competencies: A Constructivist Perspective," Working Papers
of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 08/506,
Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
Inyang J.B., & Enuoh, O.R. (2009). Entrepreneurial Competencies: The Missing Links to
Successful Entrepreneurship in Nigeria. International Business Research Journal.
Kauffman Foundation (2010). Entrepreneurship in American Higher Education. Retrieved from
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedfiles/entrep_high_ed_report.pdf on July 1, 2012.
Kuratko, D. F. 2003. Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st
century, 2003 Coleman Foundation White Paper Series for the U.S. Association of Small
Business and Entrepreneurship. Madison, WI: USASBE.
Liñan, F., Rodríguez-Cohard J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting
entrepreneurial intention levels: A role for Education. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, 7(2), 1995-218.doi: 10.1007/s11365-010-0154-z
Luthje, C., Franke, N., 2003. The ‘making’ of an entrepreneur: testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT. R&D Management, Vol.33,
No.2, pp.135–147. doi: 10.1111/1467-9310.00288
McGee, J. E., Peterson, M., Mueller, S.L., & Sequeira, J.M. (2009). Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy:
Refining the Measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (4), 965-988.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x
Miura, I.T. (1987). A multivariate study of school-aged children’s computer interest and use.
In M.E. Ford & D.H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing living systems: Putting the
framework to work (pp. 177–197). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mueller, S. and S. Goic (2003). "East-West differences in entrepreneurial self-efficacy:
Implications for entrepreneurship education in transition economies." International
Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1 (4): 613-632.
Nuttin, J. (1984). Motivation, planning, and action: A relational theory of behavior dynamics.
Louvain psychology series. Studia psychologica. Belgium: LeuvenUniversity Press.
Owen, S. (1986). Using self-efficacy in program evaluation. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, C.A.
Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial
learning. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 8 (2): 150–8.
doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006816
Scherer, R.F., Adams, J.S., Carley, S.S and Wiebe, F.A. (1989). Role model performance effects
on the development of entrepreneurial career preferences. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 13 (3) pp. 53-71.
Solomon, G.t., Duffy,S. Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the
UnitedStates: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1): 65-86. Retrieved form:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/87223481/Entrepreneurship-Education-and-Research-
Emerging-Trends-and-Concerns on July, 2, 2012.

Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise
entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning,
inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 566–591.
doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Young, J. E. 1997. Entrepreneurship education and learning for university students and
practicing entrepreneurs. In D. L. Sexton, & R. D. Smilor (Eds.), Entrepreneurship 2000:
215–238. Kansas City, MO and Chicago, IL: Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Center
for Entrepreneurial Leadership Inc., and Upstart.
UNESCO (1998).World Declaration on Higher Education for The Twenty-First Century: Vision
and Action. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm on June 28, 2012.
Wallerstein, N. (1993) Empowerment and health: the theory and practice of community
change. Community Development Journal, 28, 218–227. doi: 10.1093/cdj/28.3.218
Whitlock, D.M. Masters, R.J. (1996) Influences on Business Students' Decisions to Pursue
Entrepreneurial Opportunities or Traditional Career Paths. SBI-DA, San Diego, CA:
Small Business Institute Director's Association. Retrivied from
(http://www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1996/SBIDA/96sbi039.htm).

LITERATUR REVIEW
24 Type : Journal
Title : Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions among business students in
Macedonia
Authors & : Ana Tomovska Misoskaa, Makedonka Dimitrovab and Jadranka Mrsika
Department aSchool of Business Economics and Management, University American
College Skopje, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia; bUAKS Entrepreneurship
and Leadership Development Institute, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
Journal : Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2016 VO L. 29, NO . 1, 1062–
1074 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211956
Ringkasan :
Sebelum Republik Makedonia memperoleh kemerdekaannya pada tahun 1991, lingkungan bisnis
menekan niat wirausaha sebagai bagian dari warisan komunis, tetapi hari ini mereka berjuang untuk
mengingatkan pentingnya bisnis kecil bagi pertumbuhan ekonomi negara secara keseluruhan.
Tingkat pengangguran pada kuartal pertama 2015 di antara orang-orang antara usia 15 dan 24
adalah 47,5%, sedangkan di antara usia 25–49 adalah 26% (Kantor Statistik Negara, 2015). Melihat
lebih dekat pada tingkat pendidikan total orang yang menganggur di Makedonia pada periode yang
sama menunjukkan bahwa 19% memiliki tingkat pendidikan yang lebih tinggi dan 21% memiliki gelar
universitas. Tingkat pengangguran rata-rata Uni Eropa pada bulan April 2015 adalah 9,7%; Namun,
tingkat pengangguran kaum muda (penduduk berusia 15-24) adalah 20,7% (Eurostat, 2015).
Meskipun langkah-langkah dekade diperkenalkan untuk meningkatkan semangat kewirausahaan,
aktivitas ekonomi di antara populasi yang lebih muda masih rendah, terutama di Italia, rata-rata
40,9%. Republik Makedonia, sebuah negara dalam transisi ekonomi yang berkepanjangan,
menghadapi tantangan luar biasa dalam memberi inspirasi dan memungkinkan generasi muda
untuk berkomitmen terhadap wirausaha atau pendirian bisnis wirausaha. Studi menemukan bahwa
niat kewirausahaan menentukan kemungkinan memulai bisnis sedangkan Teori Perilaku Berencana
menunjukkan bahwa niat menangkap aspek motivasi perilaku dan bergantung pada keyakinan
perilaku, normatif dan kontrol. Penelitian ini berusaha untuk mengidentifikasi faktor-faktor yang
mendorong niat kewirausahaan di kalangan mahasiswa bisnis Makedonia. Penelitian ini
menggunakan pendekatan Partial Least Square (PLS) untuk Structural Equation Modeling. Structural
Equation Modeling adalah teknik yang sangat berguna dalam penelitian yang menggunakan
sejumlah indikator (variabel yang diamati) untuk mengukur variabel laten - konstruksi (Chin, 1998)
dan menguji hubungan antara variabel laten pada tingkat teoritis (Hair, Sarstedt, Ringle, & Mena,
2012). Pengujian hubungan antara variabel laten (model dalam) didasarkan pada penilaian variabel
laten pada tingkat observasional (model luar atau pengukuran) menurut Hair et al. (2012). Ada dua
pendekatan yang berbeda untuk SEM: SEM berbasis kovarian (CB-SEM) (Joreskog, 1978) dan SEM
berbasis varians (PLS-SEM) (Wold, 1985). Mengingat bahwa penelitian ini memiliki model teoritis
yang rumit dengan sejumlah indikator dan variabel laten serta model yang relatif baru untuk diuji,
itu menggunakan pendekatan PLS-SEM karena pendekatan yang direkomendasikan dalam situasi
seperti itu (Chin, 1998) . Lebih khusus lagi, penelitian ini menggunakan program SmartPLS (Ringle,
Wende, & Will, 2005). Untuk menguji model luar - penilaian variabel laten - indikator berikut
digunakan: pemuatan luar untuk memeriksa keandalan indikator; keandalan konsistensi internal;
validitas konvergen; validitas diskriminan; dan lintas beban. Menurut Wong (2013), model dalam
diakses menggunakan koefisien determinasi (R2) yang menunjukkan berapa banyak varians dari
variabel endogen dijelaskan oleh variabel lain dari model dan prosedur bootstrap digunakan untuk
menguji signifikansi statistik (Koefisien jalur yang signifikan secara statistik adalah yang dengan nilai
T lebih besar dari 1,96 untuk uji dua-ekor pada tingkat signifikansi 95%). Temuan menyoroti dampak
pendidikan kewirausahaan, sistem pendukung dan iklim bisnis yang menguntungkan pada niat
kewirausahaan, yang sesuai dengan mayoritas negara-negara Eropa serta kecenderungan global.
Penulis menyimpulkan bahwa sistem pendidikan harus berfungsi sebagai sumber utama dukungan
bagi siswa mengenai basis pengetahuan mereka tentang kewirausahaan. Hal ini penting karena
pendidikan semacam itu dapat menghasilkan sikap yang lebih positif terhadap kewirausahaan,
perasaan kontrol yang lebih baik dan persetujuan sosial kewirausahaan yang lebih tinggi. Faktor-
faktor tersebut kemudian mengarah ke tingkat niat kewirausahaan yang lebih tinggi (Sieger et al.,
2011). Temuan ini sejalan dengan temuan GEM untuk niat wirausaha di Makedonia, menyarankan
kerja lebih lanjut diperlukan pada modernisasi sistem pendidikan baik di sektor formal dan informal.
Upaya kami membentuk sikap universitas, pemerintah, dan pusat pemula, serta keluarga, terhadap
kegiatan untuk meningkatkan niat kewirausahaan di kalangan mahasiswa bisnis. Basu dan Virick
(2008) juga menyimpulkan bahwa ada penekanan yang kuat pada niat kewirausahaan melalui
pendidikan dan paparan praktis untuk proses kewirausahaan. Ini berarti bahwa sistem pendidikan
harus memuat informasi serta pengalaman praktis bagi siswa yang akan membangun pengetahuan
dan keterampilan mereka untuk usaha wirausaha. Penelitian OECD juga menyarankan pendekatan
yang sama terhadap pendidikan kewirausahaan, menempatkan fokus pada universitas dan institusi
pendidikan tinggi dan penerapan metode pengajaran interaktif serta konseling bisnis dan sistem
pendukung UKM yang ditargetkan untuk meningkatkan niat kewirausahaan (Martinez-Fernandez &
Weyman, 2010) . Selain itu, siswa harus mendapatkan lebih banyak informasi tentang berbagai
sistem pendukung yang tersedia untuk memulai usaha baru karena jenis pengetahuan ini secara
langsung memengaruhi niat kewirausahaan. Sebuah penelitian terbaru tentang 27 negara Uni Eropa
juga mengidentifikasi bahwa pengalaman terbatas dalam jaringan bisnis dan modal sosial dapat
mempengaruhi pengaturan dan menjalankan bisnis, dan akses ke pembiayaan (Halabisky, 2012).

Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja
ISSN: 1331-677X (Print) 1848-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rero20
Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions among

business students in Macedonia
Ana Tomovska Misoska, Makedonka Dimitrova & Jadranka Mrsik
To cite this article: Ana Tomovska Misoska, Makedonka Dimitrova & Jadranka Mrsik (2016)
Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions among business students in Macedonia, Economic
Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 29:1, 1062-1074, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211956
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211956
© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 22 Dec 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 73
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rero20
Download by: [95.168.107.53] Date: 28 December 2016, At: 09:35

Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 2016
VOL. 29, NO. 1, 1062–1074
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2016.1211956
OPEN ACCESS
Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions among business

students in Macedonia
Ana Tomovska Misoskaa, Makedonka Dimitrovab and Jadranka Mrsika
a
School of Business Economics and Management, University American College Skopje, Skopje, Republic of
Macedonia; bUAKS Entrepreneurship and Leadership Development Institute, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Studies find that entrepreneurial intentions determine the likelihood Received 18 May 2016
of starting a business whereas the Theory of Planned Behaviour Accepted 8 July 2016
suggests that intentions capture the motivational aspect of behaviour KEYWORDS
and are dependent on behavioural, normative and control beliefs. Entrepreneurship;
This research endeavours to identify factors that drive entrepreneurial entrepreneurial intentions;
intentions among Macedonian business students. The Partial least theory of planned behaviour;
square approach to the Structural equation modelling was applied. business students;
Findings highlight the impact of entrepreneurship education, support Macedonia
systems and a favourable business climate on entrepreneurial
JEL CLASSIFICATIONS
intentions, which correspond to the majority of the European
L26; M13; J23; I29
countries as well as global tendencies.
1. Introduction
Before the Republic of Macedonia gained its independence in 1991, the business environ-
ment suppressed entrepreneurial intentions as part of the communist legacy, but today it’s
fighting to bring to attention the importance of small businesses for the overall economic
growth of the country. The unemployment rate in the first quarter of 2015 among people
between the ages of 15 and 24 was 47.5%, while among the ages of 25–49 it was 26% (State
Statistical Office, 2015). A closer look at the education level of the total unemployed people
in Macedonia in the same period shows that 19% have a higher level of education and 21%
hold a university degree. The European Union average unemployment rate in April 2015
was 9.7%; however, the youth unemployment rate (population aged 15–24) was 20.7%
(Eurostat, 2015). Despite the decades of measures introduced to boost entrepreneurial
spirit, the economic activity among the younger population is still low, especially in Italy,
averaging 40.9%. The Republic of Macedonia, a country in prolonged economic transition,
is facing a tremendous challenge in inspiring and enabling younger generations to commit
to self-employment or the establishment of entrepreneurial businesses. Moreover, choosing
a career option in SME or self-employment also supports the general attitude towards an
entrepreneurial career as a majority of the companies in Macedonia are SMEs (97.9%), of
CONTACT Makedonka Dimitrova dimitrova@uacs.edu.mk

© 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 1063
which 85.2% represent companies of up to ten employees. Even though academia differenti-
ates between the self-employment measures and entrepreneurial behaviour, the Government
of the Republic of Macedonia considers both as entrepreneurial activities and promotes
them as such. Following the trends in modern economies and their educational systems,
entrepreneurship education has been introduced at both high school and higher educa-
tion levels in the new millennium in support of economic activities. The business schools
were the first adopters of the entrepreneurship curricula but it gradually spread to other
disciplines, integrated accordingly with aspects of innovations. The key role in the current
and future development of job creation in Macedonia belongs to the entrepreneur, whereas
entrepreneurial education has been argued about among the researchers and practitioners
as an effective way to promote and create entrepreneurial orientation among university
students (Yoon, Kin, & Liang, 2011). The institutional context influences the performance of
economies, with an emphasis on the impact on the entrepreneur’s behaviour, and therefore
it should be further researched (Veciana, Marinés, & Urbano, 2005). There is hardly any
study that investigates the entrepreneurial intention of existing entrepreneurs; dedicated
empirical studies on entrepreneurial intentions amongst university students are almost
non-existent, with the exception of the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) research
that the Republic of Macedonia took part in, in 2008, 2009, 2012 and 2013. GEM’s total
early entrepreneurial activities were at 6.6%, putting Macedonia in line with other GEM
countries. According to GEM, the average Macedonian entrepreneur is male between the
age of 25–34 with a higher education degree and a relatively high income. GEM reiterates
that despite the increase in entrepreneurial opportunities, the number of start-ups remained
the same. This may be influenced by the dominant mindset preference for public sector jobs
or job placements in big companies (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2015).
2. Theoretical background

Researchers argue that the reason behind the growing interest in entrepreneurship education
is its impact on job creation and economic growth and, in fact, research proves that there is
a strong link between entrepreneurial activity and economic performance (Lado & Vozikis,
1996; Kuratko, 2005). Moreover, Lado and Vozikis (1996) stress the need to stimulate the
entrepreneurial culture on a global level. One of the ways to achieve greater interest in
entrepreneurial activities is through entrepreneurship education at the levels of university,
public servants and teaching staff. In the wider societal context, there are certain systematic
and cultural dimensions that craft entrepreneurial activities, i.e., the intentions of the young
population. In the search for these dimensions we construct the main research question as
such: which factors drive entrepreneurial intentions among business students in Macedonia?
A specific line of research explored the cognitive aspects of entrepreneurship and various
factors connected to starting a business among university students. A number of authors
emphasised that becoming an entrepreneur is an intentional and planned behaviour and,
as such, intentions are best predictors of behaviour, not attitudes, beliefs, personality or
demographics (Audet, 2004; Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud, 2000; Kolvereid, 1996; Mboko,
2011; Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999). In addition, researchers have attempted to find the rela-
tionship between the students’ values, attitudes and behaviours and their entrepreneurial
potential, if it could help them start up a company, to self-employ or, in the last instance, have
the intention to do so. Krueger et al. (2000) defined intentions as planned target behaviour
1064 A. T. Misoska et al.
to start a business, but the point of venture realisation in the future is not determined. It
might happen that they never actually start a business because other factors might inter-
vene. Intentions are also known to predict behaviour in long-run tendencies thus cancel-
ling variation in actual behaviour over time; Audet (2004) researched how entrepreneurial
perceptions and intentions evolve over time. However, people with higher entrepreneurial
intentions have a higher likelihood of actually starting a business than those with lower
intentions (Thompson, 2009). There are also other dimensions that determine the likelihood
of becoming an entrepreneur, such as previous experience in family business or motivation
by a sibling to become involved in entrepreneurial activity (Van Auken, 2006). One study
on entrepreneurial intentions among business school students conducted in Macedonia and
Slovenia suggested that the majority of those students who had experience in a family busi-
ness plan to establish a business in the near future or already run one (Dimitrova, Vadnjal,
Petrovska, & Bojadziev, 2014). Moreover, a large study of over 1 million students all over
the world showed that students prefer organisational employment directly after studies,
although the preference weakens after 5 years of university education (Sieger, Fueglistaller,
& Zellweger, 2011). Therefore, intentions are considered a good predictor of behaviour,
especially at times where there is a time lag between the stated preference to become an
entrepreneur and the actual behaviour. Moreover, intentions offer a unique opportunity
to explain and predict entrepreneurial activity but they have explanatory and predictive
power, as shown in a number of studies (Guerrero, Rialp, & Urbano, 2006; Kolvereid, 1996;
Linan, Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011; Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999; Veciana et al., 2005). The
intentions are especially useful when it comes to predicting the career choices of students
(Kolvereid, 1996; Veciana et al., 2005).
In order to enhance the understanding of entrepreneurial intentions, many authors use
two models: Shapero’s Model of Entrepreneurial Event (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) and Theory
of Planned Behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991). Shapero’s (1982) model is specific to the field
of entrepreneurship and is based on the premise that the intention to become an entrepre-
neur is derived from perceptions of desirability as well as feasibility and propensity to act
upon opportunities. On the other hand TPB was founded on the theoretical developments
in psychology and is applied in a number of other fields, which makes the theory more
robust (Krueger, 2000). A number of studies used TPB to study entrepreneurial intentions
in various countries and settings (Guerrero et al., 2006; Kolvereid, 1996; Linan et al., 2011;
Mboko, 2011; Tkachev & Kolvereid, 1999). According to the TPB as presented in Figure 1,
intentions capture the motivational aspect of behaviour and are dependent on three different
beliefs: beliefs about the likely consequences of the behaviour – behavioural beliefs; beliefs
about the normative expectations of other people – normative beliefs; and beliefs about the
presence of factors that might hinder behaviour – control beliefs (Ajzen, 1991, 2002, 2012).
Behavioural beliefs result in perceived behavioural control, which represents the extent to
which people think that they will be successful in performing certain behaviour if they want
to do so and this is closely related to self-efficacy and also the perceived controllability of
behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). The normative beliefs result in a subjective norm, which means the
perceived social pressure to perform with a particular behaviour while the control beliefs
result in an attitude towards certain behaviour (Ajzen,1991). This means that the entrepre-
neurial intentions are based on the positive or negative personal appraisal about being an
entrepreneur – attitude towards behaviour; perceived difficulty in becoming an entrepreneur
– perceived behavioural control; and perceived approval or disapproval of family, friends and
Attitude towards behaviour:
Would becoming an entrepreneur
be attractive?
Perceived behavioural control: Intentions: How
Do you think you can be likely you are to Behaviour
successful as entrepreneur? start a business?
Subjective norm: Would starting
a business be judged positively
by people who matter to you?
Figure 1. Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour.
significant others of the decision to become an entrepreneur – subjective norm. Therefore,

Ajzen (1991) reiterates that the control beliefs result in attitude towards behaviour, which
means the attractiveness of the outcomes of certain behaviour.
Moreover, the theory suggests that the appraisal of the business climate, education expe-
rience and support knowledge are keys to understanding the entrepreneurial intentions of
students. These points might have direct influence on the intentions or indirect influence
through influencing the behavioural control, attitude towards behaviour or social norm.
Basu and Virick (2008) suggest that educational support may positively reflect on the entre-
preneurial attitudes among students. Other studies reinforce the importance of knowing
about various support systems, as well as student’s knowledge of various support mecha-
nisms and their appraisal of business climates. Therefore, entrepreneurial activity depends
largely on how people perceive the feasibility of the undertaking based on the desirability
of the activity in the social context (Kolvereid, 1996) and perceived support (Mboko, 2011).
Studies have pointed out that students are more willing to consider becoming entrepreneurs
if they have knowledge about the various support mechanisms as financial risks were one
of the important barriers in starting a company (Sieger et al., 2011). Research also identifies
that increased structural support was more conducive to entrepreneurial intentions (Turker
& Selcuk, 2009). In addition, a number of studies have shown that entrepreneurial spirit and
intentions can be stimulated in properly planned educational interventions (Basu & Virick,
2008; Jakubczak & Rawowska, 2013). Thus, the study of Turker and Selcuk (2009) found
that if a university provides adequate knowledge and inspiration for entrepreneurship, the
possibility of choosing an entrepreneurial career might increase among young people. To
gain a deeper understanding of the entrepreneurial intentions, we conducted an empirical
study on business students’ entrepreneurial intentions in Macedonia. The main interest was
to understand the influence of students’ appraisal as a result of their education experience,
the business climate and knowledge of support mechanisms, as these are factors that are
indicated as being important in the entrepreneurial intentions of the students. The study
involved not only seeing whether these factors stimulate entrepreneurial intentions but also
showing how they do this, through utilising the Theory of Planned Behaviour.
3. Methodology
The empirical analysis was carried on a sample of university students in the spring semester
of the academic year 2012/13. The instrument used in the study was based on an instrument
developed by Linan and Chen (2009) and Linan et al. (2011). The instrument was developed
with TPB in mind and cross-checked with other measures of entrepreneurial intentions as
well as a cross-cultural check. Besides using the original items of the instrument, some other
sections were added to the instrument to enable gathering data that will portray the situa-
tion in Macedonia and enable gathering data about the perceptions of students regarding
different aspects connected to entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship. The added
sections served to understand the student’s views and experiences that can be connected
to their entrepreneurial intentions. The questions linked to the model of entrepreneurial
intentions were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale. All of the questions were
positively worded, but in order to avoid acquiescence to the questions some items measure
in one direction whereas others measure in the opposite direction (Thompson, 2009). The
questions used in the study for model testing are given in Appendix 1.
The sample of the study consisted of students at Business Schools from two different
universities in the Republic of Macedonia. The study was carried out using convenient sam-
pling of first-year undergraduate students, final-year undergraduate students and students
in the final year of their graduate studies. This method of sampling enabled us to portray
the views of the students at different stages of their schooling. The students have different
experiences regarding subjects connected to entrepreneurship as well as differences in their
thinking about their future careers and career options. The sample consisted of 213 students
in total, 84.1% were undergraduate students and 15.9% were graduates. Most of the students
in the sample were females 60.9% and the rest were males (39.1%). The average age of the
students was 20.5 years.
This study used the Partial Least Square (PLS) approach to Structural Equation Modelling.
Structural Equation Modelling is a technique that is especially useful in research that uses a
number of indicators (observed variables) to measure latent variables – constructs (Chin,
1998) and test relationships between latent variables on a theoretical level (Hair, Sarstedt,
Ringle, & Mena, 2012). The relationship testing between the latent variables (inner model)
is based on the assessment of the latent variables at observational level (outer or measure-
ment model) according to Hair et al. (2012). There are two different approaches to SEM:
covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) (Joreskog, 1978) and variance-based SEM (PLS-SEM)
(Wold, 1985). Having in mind that the study had a complicated theoretical model with a
number of indicators and latent variables as well as a relatively new model to test, it used
the PLS-SEM approach as it is a recommended approach in such situations (Chin, 1998).
More specifically the study utilised the programme SmartPLS (Ringle, Wende, & Will,
2005). To test the outer model – assessment of the latent variables –the following indicators
were used: outer loadings to check for indicator reliability; internal consistency reliability;
convergent validity; discriminant validity; and cross-loadings. According to Wong (2013),
the inner model was accessed using the coefficient of determination (R2) which shows how
much of the variance of the endogenous variable is explained by other variables of the model
and the bootstrapping procedure was used to test for statistical significance (statistically
significant path coefficients are the ones with T values larger than 1.96 for a two-tailed test
at a 95% significance level).
Table 1. Confirmatory analysis of the outer model.

Indicator reliability Composite
Latent variable Indicator Loading (squared loading) reliability AVE
Attitude towards A15 0.8833 0.78021889 0.8424 0.728
behaviour A18 0.8223 0.67617729
Perceived behav- A01 0.6501 0.42263 0.817 0.6013
ioural control A07 0.8261 0.682441
A14 0.8369 0.700402
Subjective norm A03 0.8002 0.64032 0.8513 0.6562
A08 0.8315 0.691392
A11 0.7977 0.636325
Entrepreneurial A04 0.7817 0.611055 0.8615 0.6088
intentions A06 0.7885 0.621732
A13 0.8052 0.648347
A17 0.7444 0.554131
Business climate B1 0.6792 0.461313 0.8496 0.5321
B2 0.7537 0.568064
B3 0.8097 0.655614
B4 0.7495 0.56175
B5 0.6432 0.413706
Education expe- E1 0.7297 0.532462 0.9053 0.5454
rience E2 0.7452 0.555323
E3 0.688 0.473344
E6 0.6389 0.408193
E7 0.7534 0.567612
E8 0.787 0.619369
E9 0.794 0.630436
E10 0.7593 0.576536
Support knowl- S1 0.6596 0.435072 0.8919 0.5422
edge S2 0.7852 0.616539
S3 0.7301 0.533046
S6 0.8059 0.649475
S7 0.6935 0.480942
S8 0.6873 0.472381
S9 0.7794 0.607464
Source: Research results.
4. Results
In the initial stage, we have tested the outer model to check which indicators (questions)
satisfy the required criteria. The results of this confirmatory factor analysis are shown in
Tables 1 and 2. The model was accepted when the indicators satisfied the requirements
mentioned in the literature. Namely the indicators that were deemed to have satisfactory
reliability had square loadings higher than 0.4 (Hulland, 1999). The internal consistency
reliability was deemed satisfactory when the model reached a composite reliability of over
0.6 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). For the convergent validity, an AVE number of over 0.5 was deemed
an appropriate finding according to the above-mentioned authors. The discriminant validity
was accessed using the Fornell and Larcker (1981) criterion by which the square root of the
AVE should be higher than the correlations among the latent variables.
4.1. Inner model testing

As a result of the confirmatory factor analysis, only the questions (indicators) with sat-
isfactory statistical outcomes were used in further analysis and the inner model testing.
This means that the attitude towards behaviour was tested with two questions, Perceived
Table 2. Fornell–Larcker criterion for discriminant validity.

Attitude Entrepre- Perceived Support
towards Business Education neurship behavioural Subjective knowl-
behaviour climate experience intentions control norm edge
Attitude 0.8533 0 0 0 0 0 0
towards
behaviour
Business 0.1551 0.7294 0 0 0 0 0
climate
Education 0.2067 0.1276 0.7385 0 0 0 0
experience
Entrepreneurial 0.6352 0.1167 0.2481 0.7802 0 0 0
intentions
Perceived 0.3893 0.1317 0.1547 0.5476 0.81 0 0
behavioural
control
Subjective 0.3752 0.0192 0.1787 0.3824 0.3561 0.7363 0
norm
Support 0.0643 0.2226 0.1552 0.1987 0.1585 0.0474 1
knowledge
Table 3. Attractiveness of career options for students.

Not attractive Undecided Attractive
Public administration 44.8 16 29.2
Big company 10.7 16.4 72.8
SME 29.4 24.5 46.1
Entrepreneur 22.9 14.8 62.3
Family business 11.3 10 78.6
Self-employed 43.7 14.6 41.8
behavioural control was tested with three questions, Subjective norm with three ques-
tions, Entrepreneurial intentions with four questions, Business climate with five questions,
Education experience with eight questions and Support knowledge with seven questions.
To obtain a better insight into the students’ thinking about entrepreneurship, the study also
asked the students to provide answers on the attractiveness of certain career options. Table
3 outlines the answers of the students. As can be seen, becoming an entrepreneur is one
of the more attractive options for the students, with 62.3% of the students choosing it as
attractive employment option. However, working in their own family business, an option
compatible with entrepreneurship, was chosen as attractive by a majority of the students
as well (78.6%).
Having in mind the structure of the students, their opinions about entrepreneurship
as an attractive career option, as well the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, the
study proceeded with testing the model of entrepreneurial intentions of the students. This
testing enabled us to get a better insight into the variables that influence the entrepreneur-
ial intentions of the students. The results of the testing are shown in Figure 2 and Table 4.
Figure 2 shows only the statistically significant path coefficients, while Table 4 shows all the
coefficients, with the statistically significant ones in bold.
As can be seen from Figure 2 and Table 4, the model explains 53.5% of the variance in
Entrepreneurial intentions. This means that there are other factors that also contribute to
Figure 2. Model of entrepreneurial intention with business climate, education experience, entrepreneurial
skills and support knowledge.
Table 4. Path coefficients of the tested model of entrepreneurial intentions.

Path coefficient
Attitude → Entrepreneurial Intentions 0.4662
Business climate → Attitude 0.1325
Business climate → Entrepreneurial Intentions −0.0328
Business climate → Perceived behaviour control 0.0919
Business climate → Subjective norm −0.0081
Education experience → Attitude 0.1275
Education experience → Entrepreneurial Intentions 0.0763
Education experience → Perceived behaviour control 0.0653
Education experience → Subjective norm 0.1764
Perceived behaviour control → Entrepreneurial Intentions 0.3134
Subjective norm → Attitude 0.3499
Subjective norm → Entrepreneurial Intentions 0.0777
Subjective norm → Perceived behaviour control 0.3374
Support knowledge → Attitude −0.0016
Support knowledge → Entrepreneurial Intentions 0.1108
Support knowledge → Perceived behaviour control 0.1119
Support knowledge → Subjective norm 0.0218
Entrepreneurial intentions but the model has a good predictive value. The model reiter-
ates once again the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) by uncovering statistically significant paths from
perceived behavioural control, subjective norm and attitude towards behaviour to entre-
preneurial intentions. Subjective norm influences the perceived behavioural control and
attitude which is in line with the Linan and Chen (2009) research conducted on business
students in Spain and Taiwan that suggests promotion of entrepreneurial culture to support
the entrepreneurial intentions of students.
In addition, the model shows how the broader drivers impact students’ entrepreneur-
ial intentions. The model indicates that the educational experiences that develop knowl-
edge about entrepreneurship have a statistically significant influence on subjective norms,
attitudes towards behaviour and perceived behavioural control. This means students that
appraise a higher level of preparedness for entrepreneurship through educational expe-
riences, demonstrate a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship, perceive that
entrepreneurship is valued higher by their significant others and perceive that they can be
more successful as entrepreneurs. These elements mediate the relationship between their
educational experience and their entrepreneurial intentions. The findings about the ability
of education to stimulate entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship are in line with
other studies (Basu & Virick, 2008). For example, GUESSS global research concludes that
from students’ point of view there is strong demand for workshops, participation in entre-
preneurship networks, lectures in innovation and contact persons for problems related to
entrepreneurship (Sieger et al., 2011). Interestingly, the model shows a direct link between
knowledge of support systems and entrepreneurial intentions (Mboko, 2011; Sieger et al.,
2011). This means that, regardless of the other factors, being more aware about support
systems will lead to a higher level of entrepreneurial intention among business students
from Macedonia. A recent empirical study was carried out by the Network of Business Start
Up Centres on the territory of the Western Balkans where 72% of the respondents said that
knowledge of the support systems has a great impact on their entrepreneurial activities
(Hajdukov, 2011). The model shows a statistically significant influence on perception of the
business climate and entrepreneurship towards attitude and perceived behavioural control.
This means that students that express a more positive perception about the business climate
also express a more positive attitude towards entrepreneurship and think that they can be
more successful as entrepreneurs.
5. Conclusion
This study is a first of its kind in Macedonia. Although it is limited in scope and uses only
students from business schools it highlights important findings about the drivers of entre-
preneurial intentions among students. This study again emphasises that the educational
system should serve as the main source of support for students regarding their knowledge
base about entrepreneurship. This is important since such education can result in more
positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship, feeling of better control and higher social
approval of entrepreneurship. Those factors then lead to higher levels of entrepreneurial
intentions (Sieger et al., 2011). The findings go along with the GEM finding for entrepre-
neurial intention in Macedonia, suggesting further work is required on educational sys-
tem modernisation both in the formal and the informal sector. Our endeavour shapes the
attitude of the universities, governments, and start-up centres, as well as families, towards
activities to increase entrepreneurial intention among business students. Basu and Virick
(2008) also conclude that there is a strong emphasis on entrepreneurial intentions through
the education and practical exposure to entrepreneurship processes. This means that the
educational system should contain information as well as practical experiences for students
that will build their knowledge and skills for entrepreneurial ventures. OECD studies also
suggest a similar approach to entrepreneurial education, putting a focus on the university
and higher education institutions and implementation of interactive teaching methods as
well as business counselling and targeted SME support systems to increase entrepreneurial
intentions (Martinez-Fernandez & Weyman, 2010). In addition, students should get more
information about the various support systems available for starting new ventures as this
type of knowledge directly influences entrepreneurial intentions. A recent study on the EU
27 countries also identifies that limited experience in business networks and social capital
may influence the setting up and running businesses, and access to finance (Halabisky, 2012).
Fostering a good business climate will stimulate more positive attitudes and the feeling of
being more in control, which will lead to higher entrepreneurial intentions. Future research
in this field should target students enrolled in programmes other than business to serve as
a solid basis for future policy interventions and increased self-employment in Macedonia.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Acknowledgement
The extended abstract of this paper was originally presented at the Seventh International Scientific
Conference ‘European Union Future Perspectives: Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Economic
Policy’, Pula, Croatia, 21–23 May 2015.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of
planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665–683.
Ajzen, I. (2012). Theory of planned behaviour. In P. A. M. Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins
(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 439–459). London: Sage.
Audet, J. (2004). A longitudinal study of the entrepreneurial intentions of university students. Academy
of Entrepreneurship Journal, 10, 23–16.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 16, 74–94. Springer.
Basu, A., & Virick, M. (2008). Assessing entrepreneurial intentions amongst students: A comparative
study. 12th Annual Meeting of the National Collegiate of Inventors and Innovators Alliance, Dallas,
USA, 79–86.
Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A.
Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Dimitrova, M., Vadnjal, J., Petrovska, I., & Bojadziev, M. (2014). Should I become an entrepreneur or
an employee: Dilemmas of students in Macedonia and Slovenia?. Acta Oeconomica Universitatis,
3, 35–44. Komarno: Selye.
Eurostat. (2015, June 7). Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. doi:10.2307/3151312.
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. (2015, June 8). Macedonia Country Profile. Retrieved from http://
gemconsortium.org/country-profile/84.
Guerrero, M., Rialp, J., & Urbano, D. (2006). The impact of desirability and feasibility on entrepreneurial
intentions: A structural equation model. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,
4, 35–50.
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C., & Mena, J. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares
structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of Academic Marketing Science, 40,
414–433. Springer Science & Business Media B.V. doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6.
Hajdukov, S. (2011). Impact on entrepreneurial education at university centres on development of
passive component of entrepreneurship. Poslovni consultant, 2-6, 17–23.
Halabisky, D. (2012). Policy brief of youth entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial activities in Europe”.
Luxembourg: OECD/European Union.
Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of
four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204. Wiley.
Jakubczak, J., & Rawowska, A. (2013). The role of education and culture in the development of
youth entrepreneurship in European Union. Management, Knowledge and Learning International
Conference, 997–1003.
Joreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika,
43, 443–477. Springer.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 21, 47–57.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411–432.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and
challenges. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 29, 577–597.
Lado, A. A., & Vozikis, G. S. (1996). Transfer of technology to promote entrepreneurship in developing
countries: An integration and proposed framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21, 55.
Linan, F., & Chen, Yi-W (2009). Development of cross-cultural application of a specific instrument
to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 593–617. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Linan, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions:
Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,
23, 187–215. Routledge
Martinez-Fernandez, C., & Weyman, T. (2010). Skill development and training in SMEs: Local economic
and employment development. Chapter 4, 71–95. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Mboko, S. (2011). Towards and explanation of the growth in young entrepreneurship activities: A
cross country survey of work values of college students. Journal of Marketing Development and
Competitiveness, 5, 108–118.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2005). SmartPLS 2.0. (beta). Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.
de. Hamburg.
Shapero, A., & Sokol, L. (1982). Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C. A. Kent, D. L. Sexton,
& K. H. Vesper (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 7240 (pp. 72–90). Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Sieger, P., Fueglistaller, U. and Zellweger, T. (2011). Entrepreneurial intentions and activities of
students across the world: International report of the Global University Entrepreneurial Spirit
Students. Survey project University of St Galen.
State Statistical Office. Republic of Macedonia. (2015, June 8). Researchers’ derived data. Retrieved
from http://www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziSoopstenie.aspx?rbrtxt=98.
Thompson, E. R. (2009). Individual entrepreneurial intent: Construct clarification and development
of an internationally reliable metric. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 669–694. Wiley-
Blackwell.
Tkachev, A., & Kolvereid, L. (1999). Self-employment intentions among Russian students.
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 11, 269–280.
Turker, D., & Selcuk, S. S. (2009). Which factors affect entrepreneurial intention of university students?
Journal of European Industrial Training, 33, 142–159.
Van Auken, P. (2006). Role model influences on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between
USA and Mexico. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2, 325–336.
Veciana, J. M., Marinés, A., & Urbano, D. (2005). University students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship:
A two countries comparison. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, l1,
165–182. Springer.
Wold, H. (1985). Partial least squares. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical
sciences (pp. 581–591). New York, NY: Wiley.
Wong, K. K. (2013). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Techniques
Using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24. Technical Note, 1, 1–32.
Yoon, D., Kin, T., & Liang, C. L. (2011). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention among university
students. International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanity Studies, 3, 487–496.
Appendix 1. Survey questions

Entrepreneurial intentions, attitude towards behaviour, perceived behavioural control and subjective
norm
A01. Starting a firm and keeping it viable would be easy for me
A02. A career as an entrepreneur is totally unattractive to me
A03. My friends would approve of my decision to start a business
A04. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur
A05. I believe I would be completely unable to start a business
A06. I will make every effort to start and run my own business
A07. I am able to control the creation process of a new business
A08. My immediate family would approve of my decision to start a business
A09. I have serious doubts about ever starting my own business
A10. If I had the opportunity and resources, I would love to start a business
A11. My colleagues would approve of my decision to start a business
A12. Amongst various options, I would rather be anything but an entrepreneur
A13. I am determined to create a business venture in the future
A14. If I tried to start a business, I would have a high chance of being successful
A15. Being an entrepreneur would give me great satisfaction
A16. It would be very difficult for me to develop a business idea
A17. My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur
A18. Being an entrepreneur implies more advantages than disadvantages to me
A19. I have a very low intention of ever starting a business
A20. I know all about the practical details needed to start a business
Business climate
B1. In my country there are enough financial resources for starting a business
B2. In my country the procedure for starting a new business is straightforward
B3. The legal system in my country is conducive for doing business
B4. The tax system in my country is conducive for doing business
B5. The government of the country directly supports the creation of new businesses (financial incen-
tives, advising)
B6. The government in my country supports women entrepreneurs
B7. The infrastructure in my country is conducive for doing business (roads, power, water, transport
links, telecommunications, industrial land, estates and incubators)
Education experience – How much has the educational system helped you to develop the following
aspects
E1. Knowledge about the entrepreneurial environment
E2. Generation of idea for business and recognising opportunities
E3. Development of Business Plan for Start-up Business
E4. Setting up a new venture team
E5. Avoiding legal issues at start-up
E6. Growing a business
E7. Greater recognition of the entrepreneur’s figure
E8. The preference to be an entrepreneur
E9. The necessary abilities to be an entrepreneur
E10. The intention to be an entrepreneur
E11. Skill for succession of family business, if any
Support knowledge – Assess your level of knowledge about the following

S1. Private associations (e.g., Economic Chamber, Yes Incubator, etc.)
S2. Public support bodies (e.g., Agency for promotion of entrepreneurship of the Republic of
Macedonia, etc.)
S3. Specific training for young entrepreneurs

S4. Loans at specially favourable terms
S5. Technical aid for business start-ups
S6. Business start-up centres
S7. Business Angel Networks
S8. Venture Capital Funds
S9. Regional or local Business Plan Competitions on regular basis

Dilson Tgs KWU Minggu 06

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dilson Tgs KWU Minggu 06

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

UNIVERSITAS NEGERI PADANG

FAKULTAS TEKNOLOGI PENDIDIKAN & KEJURUAN

DOSEN : Prof. Dr. Ganefri, MT - Dra. Asmar Yulastri, M.Pd.,Ph.D

Kurangnya pendidikan kewirausahaan di universitas-universitas Spanyol adalah karena banyak

** end of file - 21**

2012 13(1): 27–35

ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION IN HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES:

Received 8 December 2011; accepted 30 December 2011

JEL Classification: M54, I23, I25.

VERSLUMO UGDYMAS HUMANITARINIŲ IR SOCIALINIŲ MOKSLŲ STUDIJOSE:

Įteikta 2011-12-8; priimta 2011-12-30

1. Introduction From this general framework, this paper reviews the

of theoretical knowledge about a specific academic field; Table 1. Entrepreneurship competence

Table 2. Factor analysis

Table 3. Results from MANOVA

* p < .017 (Bonferroni adjusted alpha level); *** p < .001

Table 4. HSD Tukey post hoc analysis

Independent variable Mean dif.

Public Adm. and Law 1.31 .255 .001

5.05 4.98 4.97 4.82

Business Sciences Publid Administration and Law Human Sciences Humanities

Fig. 1. Mean differences by academic area

Pendidikan kewirausahaan (Enterpreneurship Education) atau disingkat dengan EE telah

** end of file - 22**

The Impact of Entrepreneurship

Using a teaching model framework, we systematically review empirical evidence on the

• Supply model focusing on reproduction • Level 1: Current and on-going measures

Personal change Business

2013 M; Wang & Verzat,

Types of Supply Sánchez, 2011 P; Crane 2014 P; Crane 2014 P;

New or underemphasized research directions

1. Explore EE at other levels, i.e. other than higher education.

Penulis menyarankan penggunaan konstruk self-efficacy kewirausahaan dalam kurikulum

Pendidik (konselor karir) perlu memaksimalkan penggunaan self-efficacy kewirausahaan dalam

** end of file - 23**

Social Cognitive Theory, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial

Carmen England Bayrón, Ed.D.

Keywords: self-efficacy, entrepreneurship, education, career counselors

El objetivo de este escrito es examinar la literatura existente sobre la Teoría Social

Palabras clave: autoeficacia, emprendedor, educación, consejeros de carrera

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 66

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 67

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 68

The Role of Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 69

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 70

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 71

Entrepreneurial competencies that are developed in educational programs have been

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 72

Figure 1: A Theoretical Framework for assessing Entrepreneurship Education Effectiveness

The research to date suggests that SCT, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial self-efficacy,

Students General Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 73

Table 1: Proposed Research Design

Implications and Conclusion

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 74

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 75

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 76

Revista Griot (ISSN 1949-4742) Volumen 6, Número. 1, Diciembre 2013 77

** end of file - 05**

ISSN: 1331-677X (Print) 1848-9664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rero20

Drivers of entrepreneurial intentions among

Ana Tomovska Misoska, Makedonka Dimitrova & Jadranka Mrsik

end of file - 21

end of file - 22

end of file - 23

end of file - 05