Description
Explanation relating to does entrepreneurial education enhance under graduate students entrepreneurial.
China-USA Business Review, ISSN 1537-1514
J anuary 2011, Vol. 10, No. 1, 53-64
53
Does Entrepreneurial Education Enhance Under-graduate
Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy? A Case at one
University of Technology in South Africa
Malefane J ohannes Lebusa
Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
Post-apartheid youth in South Africa is becoming better educated yet account for most of the growth in
unemployment. Historically, graduate youth holding diplomas from Universities of Technologies used to secure
employment relatively easily and within a reasonable timeframe after graduation. The reality today is that more and
more of these graduates are joining the unemployment queue. The impression of this study is that entrepreneurship
education has to play a role in enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Both a questionnaire and group interview is
used to test students’ level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy post entrepreneurship education course. 40 students were
randomly selected and surveyed using an entrepreneurial self-efficacy questionnaire. Based on the analysis of
quantitative data collected, 15 students were then randomly selected and subjected to group interview to clarify or
confirm the quantitative results. The findings seem that the entrepreneurship education failed in enhancing students’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Keywords: entrepreneurial education, under-graduate student, entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Introduction and Problem Statement
The gap between South Africa’s rich and the poor is among the widest of all the world’s nations. South
Africa’s rich natural resources and advanced financial, communications, energy and transport blocs, are in stark
contrast to the deep-rooted economic imbalances that have trapped millions of South Africans in a cycle of
poverty and unemployment (Renton, 2008). The country still grapples with the profound economic disparities
left by the combined legacies of colonialism and apartheid, and despite government efforts to reduce rising rates
of unemployment, millions of South Africans remain entrenched in cycles of poverty, economic exclusion and
this situation has skewed the job market and sapped entrepreneurial spirit (Thumdadoo & Gretchen, 2007, p. 16).
In the past, Whites were virtually guaranteed jobs, and thus had little incentives to embark on capitalists
ventures. Meanwhile, vast numbers of blacks were unemployed and thus weren’t building job skills and with
exceptions, they weren’t allowed to own businesses (McLaughlin, 2004). According to Hazelhurst (2008), only
13 million (42%) of South Africans have jobs as the country’s capacity to absorb new recruits into the formal
sector has fallen from approximately 64% to less than 4% in the last decade (Davies, 2001, p. 32). According to
Van Vuuren and Nieman (1999, p. 1), economist estimate that an annual real economic growth rate of 7% in
Malefane J ohannes Lebusa, Ph.D., Vaal University of Technology.
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
54
the gross domestic product (GDP) is required to meet the unemployment problems.
The persistent high levels of unemployment in South Africa which stands at 25.5% (StatsSA, 2007) and
the various adverse socio-economic effects associated with it had long been identified as one of the major
stumbling blocks to accelerated growth and poverty reduction in the country. The country’s youth (aged 15-24)
were becoming better educated, yet accounted for most of the growth in unemployment. Graduate
unemployment has been growing fast since 1995, and those with tertiary qualifications made only 3% of South
Africa’s estimated 7.5 million unemployed people (using the broad definition of unemployment, which
includes those people who have given up looking for a job), 82% of them held diplomas especially from
Universities of Technologies while graduate with university degree fare far better (Blaine, 2007). As Kraak
(2008, p. 204) has indicated, the emergence of graduate unemployment, even amongst graduates with
sought-after skills, illustrated the full circle the South African labour market for technically skilled workers has
traversed over the past two to three decades: from well structured arrangements for white artisans and
para-professionals—achieved through effective occupational labour markets and on the basis of the exclusion
of blacks—to the laissez-faire labour market structure of today where no structured pathways exist for the new
black beneficiaries of education and training.
To further highlight the plight of graduates in South Africa, the study conducted by University of Cape
Town indicated that, only 50% of Indians and coloured graduates, 88.9% of Africans and 78.3% of whites were
employed immediately in the engineering field. Those who found jobs in economics were even fewer. The
study also found that students from historically white universities had better employment prospects while those
from historically black institutions generally found it difficult to get jobs (Govender, 2007). As North (2002, p.
24) has further indicated, for young people to escape from vicious circle caused by failings in educational
system, active intervention will be necessary. There is therefore an urgent need for young people to be educated
and trained in the field of entrepreneurship as to change them to pursue an entrepreneurial career, because
entrepreneurship will lead to increased economic efficiencies, brings innovation to market, creates new jobs,
and sustains employments levels (Rae & Carswell, 2001, p. 150). It is believed that an entrepreneurial
education will produce more and better entrepreneurs than were produced in the past (Ronstadt, 1985).
For South African to make a serious dent in the country’s appalling high rate of graduate unemployment
and help government meet the target of reducing unemployment to less than 15% by 2014, it is suggested that
entrepreneurialism informs teaching and learning in Universities of Technologies. These graduates have thus to
be entrepreneurial because the previous economic structure in South Africa was well served by this institutions
in that they provided a resource pool for large corporations. This, however, has developed a student mindset
that favours employment in big business in the formal sector (Co & Mitchell, 2006, p. 349). These graduates
have to develop attributes and skills that form the basis of entrepreneurial mindset and behaviour; They have to
be aware of self-employment/entrepreneurship as possible career options (European Commission, 2008).
Clearly, it is essential to nurture the students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy which refers to the strength of
them believing in successfully running businesses in order to drive and maintain growth (Chen, Greene, &
Crick, 1998, p. 301). There is a need to train these students for small business, entrepreneurial sector in South
African developing economies because entrepreneurship is often invoked as a panacea for unemployment and
economic growth issues. In areas of strong industrial decline, as is the case now in South Africa, the need for an
entrepreneurship culture that might compensate for the loss of firms jobs and incomes became particular
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
55
apparent (Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2003, p. 14).
Puffer and McCarthy (2001, p. 28) posit that, despite the serious roadblocks, entrepreneurship is still
identified as the business activity most likely to lead to the successful economic change in transitionary
economies. Entrepreneurship is increasingly becoming an indispensable prerequisite for success in an
increasingly globalized and competitive economy and needs to be embedded into the basic fabric of society,
including the institutions of higher learning. Every aspect of Universities of Technologies, thus must seek to
encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. An environment of entrepreneurship within Universities of Technologies
will provide the engine for innovation, risk-taking and pro-activity (Dlamini, 2004). Furthermore, an
entrepreneurial environment in these institutions and society at large will allow students to pursue opportunities
without regard to resources they currently control. The essence of entrepreneurial behavior by these students is
in identifying opportunities and putting useful ideas into practice (Barringer & Ireland, 2006, p. 5). Boyd and
Vozikis in Erikson (2002, p. 183) further indicated that, if we want to increase the amount of entrepreneurship
in society, we need to address individuals’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which, in turn, drives goal-setting,
motivation and commitment. It is suggested that (O’Neil, 2004, p. 5), the end product of entrepreneurship
education should be a creative individual who understand how to bring an idea from conception to starting and
managing a business because transforming ideas into economic opportunities is the crux of entrepreneurship.
This paper investigated the level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, post entrepreneurship education,
although the alleged benefits of entrepreneurship education have been much extolled by researchers and
educators, there has been little rigorous research on its effects. The guiding question for this was:
Does entrepreneurship education enhance the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the students at University of
Technology?
To answer this question, this paper addresses the following questions:
What does entrepreneurship education mean?
What does entrepreneurial self-efficacy mean?
What is the linkage between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy?
Theoretical foundation of the research question lies in the entrepreneurship education which has to
enhance entrepreneurial self-efficacy of students, a literature review was conducted to explain and examine
what entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy entail and a linkage between the two
concepts was outlined.
Entrepreneurship Education
Despite the fact that the debate surrounding whether or not entrepreneurship can be taught continues,
there has been much interest in entrepreneurship education over the last couple of decades (Henry et al., 2003,
p. 89). Alberti, Sciascia and Poli (2004, p. 5) define entrepreneurship education as the structured formal
conveyance of entrepreneurial competencies, which in turn refer to the concepts, skills and mental awareness
used by individuals during the process of starting and developing their growth-oriented ventures. It is about
entrepreneurial individuals interacting with their environment, thus discovering, evaluating and exploiting
opportunities.
The report by European Commission (EC, 2004) regards entrepreneurial education as an important means
to create a more entrepreneurial mindset among young people and they assert that promoting entrepreneurial
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
56
skills and attitudes provides benefits to society even beyond their application to new ventures. Since
entrepreneurship can positively affect economic growth and development, institutions of higher learning should
attempt to increase the supply of entrepreneurs through entrepreneurship programmes offer at their respective
institutions. The primary purpose of these institutions should be to develop entrepreneurial capacities and
mindsets. In this context, entrepreneurship education programmes can have different objectives, such as
developing entrepreneurial drive among students (raising awareness and motivation), training students in the
skills they need to set up a business and manage its growth, and developing the entrepreneurial ability to
identify and exploit opportunities (EC, 2008). A study of fifteen leading US entrepreneurship education
programs found that the primary goal for majority of the programs was to increase the awareness and
understanding of entrepreneurship as a process. The second major goal was to increase students’ awareness of
entrepreneurship as a career possibility (Hamidi, Wennberg, & Berglund, 2008, p. 306).
J amieson (1984) as listed in Henry et al. (2003, p. 92) has suggested a three-category framework by which
to organize entrepreneurship education. He distinguishes between:
Education about enterprise: Deals mostly with awareness creation, and has the specific objective of
educating students on various aspects of setting up and running a business mostly from a theoretical
perspective.
Education for enterprise: Deals more with the preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for a career in
self-employment with the specific objective of encouraging participants to set-up and run their own business.
Education in enterprise: Deals mainly with management training for establish entrepreneurs and focuses
on ensuring the growth and future development of the business.
According to European Commission (2008), entrepreneurship education should not be confused with
general business and an economic study, its goal is to promote creativity, innovation and self-employment, and
may include the following elements:
Developing personal attributes and skills that form the basis of an entrepreneurial mindset and behavior
(creativity, sense of initiative, risk-taking, autonomy, self-confidence, leadership, team spirit, etc.);
Raising the awareness of students about self-employment and entrepreneurship as possible career options;
Working on concrete enterprise projects and activities;
Providing specific business skills and knowledge of how to start a company and run it successfully.
According to Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006, p. 81), entrepreneurial behavior has become more and more
common, calling for better entrepreneurial skills and abilities for dealing with current challenges and uncertain
future. An innovative approach to problem solving, high readiness for change, self-confidence, and creativity
(all attributes related to entrepreneurship) constitute a viable platform for economic development in any society.
Therefore, it has been maintained that the need for entrepreneurship education has never been greater, and the
opportunities have never been so abundant. As Wilson (2004) as listed in Hamidi et al. (2008, p. 306) has
indicated, in Europe, a recent survey among 164 of the largest business schools revealed that over 42% have
established a specific entrepreneurship centers aimed at meeting what has been called “the move from managed
economy to the entrepreneurial economy”.
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy
Forbes (2005, p. 599) defines entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) as the strength of a person’s belief that
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
57
he/she is capable of successfully performing the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship. Individuals believe
that they are capable of performing the tasks associated with new-venture management. Entrepreneurial
self-efficacy comprised a deliberation of tasks that relate to the initiation and development of new ventures,
which is considered emblematic of the entrepreneurial act (Livesay, 1982 as listed in Brice & Spencer, 2007, p.
50). Chen et al. (1998, p. 301) claims that entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects entrepreneurship behaviour
through influencing entrepreneurial decisions. Wilson, Kickul and Marlino (2007, p. 388) further state that
entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been demonstrated to play a key role in determining the level of interest in
pursuing an entrepreneurial career. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is, therefore, viewed as having the capabilities
that can modify a person’s belief in his or her likelihood of completing the tasks required to successfully initiate
and establish a new venture (Bandura, 1986 as listed in Brice & Spencer, 2007, p. 52).
Luthans and Ibrayeva (2006, p. 96) further define entrepreneurial self-efficacy as the entrepreneurs’
beliefs and confidence in their capabilities to affect their environment and become successful by their
behaviours. Importantly, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is influenced by and, in turn, influences performance, it is
not reducible to just entrepreneur skills or knowledge. Rather, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a personal belief
and confidence to which one believes that he/she is able to successfully start a new business venture. It has the
potential to create change and determine what entrepreneurs will do with the entrepreneurial competencies (i.e.,
knowledge and skills) that they already have (Brice & Spencer, 2007, p. 52). It is the strength of an individual’s
belief that he/she will or not be able to successfully perform the roles and tasks of an entrepreneur.
Zhao et al. (2005, p. 1270) provided empirical evidence that entrepreneurial self-efficacy was positively
related to students’ intentions to start their own business. Boyd and Vozikis as listed in Erikson (2002, p. 184)
indicated that the higher the degree of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the stronger the entrepreneurial motivation.
Entrepreneurial intentions structured on the basis of entrepreneurial self-efficacy represent motivation and
individuals with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy may also have strong occupational intentions for an
entrepreneurial career.
According to Forbes (2005, p. 599), the construct of entrepreneurial self-efficacy is relevant to ongoing
work in the area of economic development, in the sense that entrepreneurial self-efficacy can affect individual’s
decisions to create new ventures, as well as to ongoing work in the area of new-venture strategy, in the sense
that entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence the effectiveness with which individuals manage their ventures
once they have founded them.
Starting one’s own business or initiating a new venture is often described as a purposive and intentional
career choice. Although there can be a wide variety of contextual as well as individual factors that influence the
entrepreneurial choice, the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been emphasized as key antecedent.
Accordingly, entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial career choice and development (Boyd &
Vozikis, 1994 as listed in Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998, p. 297). It is the assertion of this paper that, a student
with a high level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, who truly believes in his/her capability to execute all the
requirement to perform an entrepreneurial task successfully is more likely to see the positive potential
outcomes that might accrue from a new venture. As a result, the student may sustain more effort through the
entrepreneurial process to achieve these positive outcomes. Therefore, this paper is premised on the belief that
students are motivated to engage in entrepreneurial tasks through enhancement of self-confidence in their
entrepreneurial skills, because the ability of them to start their own businesses and generate their own economic
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
58
momentum, rather than seeking to tap into the momentum created by employer, is central to the positive
evolution of the economy as a whole.
In this paper, it is asserted that individual students might be more inclined to pursue entrepreneurship if they
believe that they possessed the necessary skills to function in such an environment because a high level of
self-efficacy can help individual students maintain their efforts until their initial entrepreneurial goals are met. In
this regard, De Noble, J ung and Ehrlich (1999) point out that an entrepreneur with a high level of self-efficacy,
who truly believes in his/her capability to execute all of the requirements to perform a task successfully is more
likely to see the positive potential outcomes that might accrue from a new venture. As a result, the entrepreneur
may sustain more effort through the entrepreneurial process to achieve these positive outcomes.
The belief in one’s own ability to function effectively as an entrepreneur is key component of perceiving
that entrepreneurship is feasible. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence the formation of entrepreneurial
intentions, in this way, among students who have never before started a business as well as among existing or
past entrepreneurs whose entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence their willingness to become repeat or
“serial” entrepreneurs in the future. Individuals with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, for example,
are more likely to exhibit persistence and concentration, behaviours that are likely to enhance new venture
performance. By contrast, low levels of self-efficacy are associated with performance-inhibiting behaviours,
such as indecision, distraction, and procrastination, in the performance of various tasks (Forbes, 2005, p. 601).
Lastly, Chen et al. (1998, p. 301) postulate that individuals with a high entrepreneurial self-efficacy
anticipate different outcomes than people with low entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Brockhaus in Chen et al. (1998,
p. 301) contended that because entrepreneurs have a very high belief in their ability to influence the
achievement of business goals, they perceive very low possibility of failure. High entrepreneurial self-efficacy
people are likely to associate challenging situations with rewards such as profit, community recognition and
psychological fulfillment, whereas low entrepreneurial self-efficacy people are likely to harbor images of
failures, such as bankruptcy, disgrace and psychological stress.
The Link Between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy
This paper argues that the greater the belief in one’s own capability to start a new business venture or be
an entrepreneur, the greater the entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and the stronger the entrepreneurial motivation to
achieve ambitious goals. In essence, the belief that one can personally execute the behaviours needed to create
a new venture is professed to enhance the intent to do so (Boyd, 1994 as listed in Brice & Spencer, 2007, p. 48).
From the theory of self-efficacy, it follows that individuals who discard entrepreneurship as a career option do
so not because they necessarily lack the abilities needed, but because they believe themselves to lack these.
And vice versa, higher awareness of one’s capabilities in coping with entrepreneurial tasks will lead to a
stronger motivation to start on one’s own (Hamidi, Wennberg, & Berglund, 2008, p. 309).
Research shows that people who believe that they have the ability to start business are five times more
likely than others to actually attempt to start a business (Orford, Wood, Fischer, Herrington, & Segal, 2003, p.
151). It is conceived that a belief in personal capabilities to start and run a business will be affected by the
education of entrepreneurship individuals will be exposed to during his/her entrepreneurship education because
University of Technologies need to redefine their role in the economy and society, specifically in what they
offer (Co & Mitchell, 2006, p. 349). According to Zhao et al. (2005, p. 1270), academic education can have a
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
59
positive impact on students’ intentions to initiate an entrepreneurial venture. It could be argued that, it may be
possible through entrepreneurial education to build confidence among students and nurture those skill
requirements essential to entrepreneurial process because it is believed that the ideal stage to acquire basic
knowledge about entrepreneurship and to foster a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship is during
childhood and adolescence years (Filion, 1994; Gasse, 1985 as listed in Peterman & Kennedy, 2003, p. 130).
Reynolds, Bygrave and Autio (2003) further indicated that, identifying business opportunities and having
confidence in personal skills to implement a business may be enhanced through education and training with
evidence suggesting that those with more education are more likely to pursue opportunity entrepreneurship
(high growth ventures), which may have overall benefits for national growth.
According to Cooper (2007, p. 3), entrepreneurial education as it is referred in this study as an intervention
that will lead individual’s student to turn ideas into action, is therefore a key competence for all students, helping
them to be more creative and self-confident in whatever they undertake, has the potential to develop knowledge
and skills for enterprise but also, importantly, increase the willingness of individuals to consider entrepreneurship
as a career option. Entrepreneurship education is believed to be able to ameliorate negative students’ perceptions
of the probability and costs of failure, and help dispel cultural stereotypes that entrepreneurship is less than ethical.
GEM findings (GEM, 2002) showed a strong relationship between the level of education of an individual and the
tendency to pursue entrepreneurial activities, and on the other hand, a strong positive relationship exists between
the level of education of the entrepreneur and level of business success.
This study is premised on the notion that, Universities of Technologies, because of many of their students
face unemployment after graduating, need to stimulate the entrepreneurial mindsets of students, encourage
innovative business start-ups, and foster a culture that is friendlier to entrepreneurship and to the growth of
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The important role of entrepreneurship education in promoting
more entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours is now widely recognized because entrepreneurship holds the
promise of growth, expansion and financial gain (Van Aart, I., Van Aart, S., & Bezuidenhout, 2007).
According to Dickson, Solomon and Weaver (2008, p. 250) there is general consensus among researchers,
although not yet definitively proven, seems to that there is a positive correlation between entrepreneurial
education and entrepreneurial activity.
Research Methods
Empirical Study
Entrepreneurship education at this University is offered on semester basis as a service subject for other
departments. This is a classroom based subject with assessment of students taking place on continuous basis by
means of variety of methods that included a formal literature review group assignment, two semester tests per
module and one closed book examination. To gain access to this examination a year mark of 40% is expected.
The weights to determine the year mark consist of two tests averaging 50% plus one projects weighing 50%
that will total hundred percent.
Population
During the undertaking of this research, there were 120 students (n=120) who have studied
entrepreneurship education at this institution. The researcher managed to get hold of the students (n=40) from
Department of Information Technology which was then used for the purpose of this research.
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
60
Sample
To find out the level of students entrepreneurial self-efficacy post entrepreneurship education, a survey
questionnaire was administered to 40 (n=40) and a group interview with 15 (n=15) undergraduate students in
Department of Information Technology at University of Technology were conducted. These students were
targeted because they were deemed the most appropriate to provide information of how the level of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy post entrepreneurship education is.
Research Instrument
A questionnaire and group interview schedule was developed using De Noble (1999) and Forbes (2005)
inventories to measure the level of students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy after entrepreneurial education. Both
instruments sought to test students’ confidence in performing the following entrepreneurial domains:
innovation, management, financial skills, marketing and risk-management.
Procedure
The participants completed a questionnaire for this study which was organized into two sections. The first
section related to respondents’ demographic characteristics. The second section consists of items eliciting
respondents’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy. A four point Likert-type scale was used where respondents had to
indicate their responses as no confidence, little confidence, more confidence and complete confidence. The
balanced four-point scale was chosen in order to eliminate the tendency of respondents to provide socially
desirable responses so as to please the researcher or to appear helpful.
After the analysis of the data from the questionnaire, a follow up group interview schedule with fifteen
(n=15) randomly selected students from the same group of forty (n=40) was undertaken. The purpose of the
interview was to follow up on the level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a way that would clarify or confirm
the quantitative results.
Reliability and Validity
The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for 15 Likert-type scale questionnaire to assess internal consistency
reliability of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy was used. All questionnaire items yielded a high reliability
Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.804 which suggests that the questions comprising the entrepreneurial
self-efficacy dimensions are internally consistent. The inter-item reliability Alpha Cronbach coefficient scored
0.681 for marketing, 0.725 for innovation, 0.777 for management, 0.685 for risk-taking and 0.672 for financial
management. The Alpha Cronbach coefficients satisfied the internal consistency of the items on the
questionnaire scale (Gliem, 2003, p. 87).
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005, p. 92), content validity is the extent to which a measuring
instrument is representative of the content or domain being measured, that is, the extent to which the content of
the instrument appears to logically examine and comprehensively include the characteristic which intended to
measure. Content validity was constructed by adhering to the five entrepreneurship constructs namely:
marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking and financial management.
Results
Findings from the descriptive data indicate general agreement with items relating to entrepreneurial
self-efficacy as indicated by mean responses of 10.3 (sd=2.654) for marketing, 7.60 (sd=2.175) for innovation,
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
61
8.23 (sd=2.144) for management, 6.87 (sd=1.697) for risk-taking and 4.67 (sd=1.295) for financial
management. Although this indicates a strong prospects of confidence in learners’ confidence in engaging in
entrepreneurial activities, it is also evident that the risk-taking and financial management does not enjoy
practice as the other three dimensions.
Items relating to innovatiness indicated that students are generally confident in engaging in innovative
activity of the new venture. When asked to respond to the statements “How confident they are in developing
new ideas for the new business”, “Developing new products and services” and “Developing new methods of
production, marketing and management”, 53.3%, 63.3% and 53.3% respectively showed confident.
More than half of the respondents (56.6%) showed confident in setting and meeting sales goals for the new
business, 60% showed confident in conducting market analysis for the business and 53.3% showed confident in
developing new market for the new business. However 60% of the respondents showed no confident in
establishing position in product markets for the new business.
The majority of students (70%) are confident in defining the organizational roles, responsibilities and
policies for the business. On whether they are confident in conducting strategic planning of the business, more
than half of the respondents (56.7%) showed confident. More than half (53.3%) of the respondents showed
confident in establishing and achieving goals and objectives for the new business.
It was found, however, that a significant majority of respondents did not show confident with performing
financial analysis for the new business (mentioned by 73.3%). On whether they are confident in developing a
financial system and internal control for the business, 66.7% showed no confident.
It was found, however, that a significant majority of students did not show confident with the notions of
reducing risk and uncertainty for the business (mentioned by 66.6%), taking calculated risks to increase
business viability and growth (mentioned by 56.7%), and making decisions under risks and uncertainty for the
business (mentioned by 66.7%).
Findings from the group interview seems to confirm the findings from the survey that was conducted as it
appeared that students are not comfortable with engaging with risk-taking and financial dimensions of the
businesses. Student stated in uncertain terms their lack of confidence in dealing with the two dimensions. One
student stated:
“I struggled a lot with numbers. I do not see myself succeeding in performing financial activity of my
business, I will employed an accountant”. Other student had this to say: “We haven’t been taught how to take
risk. We prefer to have 100% assurance of success in everything we do”. The other three entrepreneurial
self-efficacy dimensions in the form of marketing, management and innovation, appears that students are
confident in engaging in them. One student had this to say: “Robust marketing of the business is important as
this keep customers informed about your offerings”. Another student explained how to manage the business by
saying: “Happy employees are key, pay them accordingly, and make them part of your business”. One student
had this to say: “Innovation will keep us in business”.
Discussion and Conclusions
Overall, it appears that entrepreneurship education has failed in its primary purpose of enhancing students’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The two domains of risk-taking and financial management which seems lacking in
these students needs thorough attention as they are also key in enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
62
One semester exposure to entrepreneurship seems unsuccessful in ensuring entrepreneurial orientation or
more positive expectations about entrepreneurial abilities and careers as expected. As commented by Ronstadt
(1985), the provision of a single course in entrepreneurship will have less impact on the student propensity
toward entrepreneurship and enhancement of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
For the purpose of grooming students with high level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the following are
recommended by Cooper, Bottomley and Gordon (2004):
In designing and conducting entrepreneurship courses, this institution should not just train students in
critical entrepreneurial skills and capabilities, but also strengthen their entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
The institution should make conscious efforts in fostering entrepreneurial self-efficacy by involving the
students in “real-life” business design or community small business assistance, by inviting successful
entrepreneurs to lecture, and by verbal persuasion from the instructor and renowned entrepreneurs.
The institution has to move away from solely classroom based offering of the subject as to incorporate as
many diverse types of learning experiences.
The institution should take cognizance that traditional methods (examination-based) of assessment alone
are not very effective in the measurement of individual learning in entrepreneurship. It is suggested in adopting
an innovative approach that will encourage students to explore, reflect on the learning they have achieved, in
terms of both knowledge and understanding, and importantly, on the skills they have developed.
A longitudinal studies focusing on how practical entrepreneurial training can enhance entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and intention among students would be valuable.
It is clear that one of the best ways to grow the South African economy is to encourage more people to
become entrepreneurs. However, to achieve this, education and training at University of Technologies should
shift towards entrepreneurialism in almost all the courses offered, because teaching entrepreneurship is not only
possible, it is highly effective and shows that students who take entrepreneurship training (at any level) are more
likely to start a business and to succeed at it. The positive relationship between education and business creation
has been acknowledged by international literature (Charney & Libecap, 2000; Robinson & Sexton, 1994).
Lastly, entrepreneurship education at Higher Education Institutions, as Grundling and Steynberg (2008, p.
9) has asserted, should increase students’ business know-how and subsequently enhance the quality and
prospects of graduate business ventures. It should occur within a sense-making framework designed to develop
effective entrepreneurial, management and creative skills and also to create a desire in students to follow
entrepreneurship as a career. It should be such that it will provide an understanding of the competitive
landscape in which the prospective entrepreneur will function.
References
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Notes on a ongoing debate. Proceeding of the 14th Annual
IntEnt Conference. University of Napoli Federico II, Italy, J uly 4-7.
Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures. New J ersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Blaine, S. (2007). Most jobless graduates’ hold diplomas. Retrieved 29 November, 2007, from
www.businessday.co.za/2007/03/05/news/africa05asp.
Brice, J . (J .r), & Spencer, B. (2007). Entrepreneurial profiling: A decision policy analysis of the influence of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intent. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2), 47-67.
Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: An evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
63
Programme at the University of Arizona. Tucson: Ewing Marion Kauffaman Foundation.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?
Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295-316.
Co, M. J ., & Mitchell, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: A nationwide survey. Education & Training
Journal, 48(5), 348-359.
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C., & Gordon, J . (2004). Stepping out of classroom and up the ladder of learning. Industry and Higher
Education. February, 11-12.
Davies, T. A. (2001). Entrepreneurship development in South Africa: Redefining the role of tertiary institutions in a reconfigured
higher education system. South African Journal of Higher Education, 15(1), 32-39.
De Noble, A. F., J ung, D., & Ehrlrich. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship to
entrepreneurial action. Retrieved 30 December, 2007, from www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers99/I/I_C/IC%20Text.htm
Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: does education matter? Journal
of Small Business & Enterprise Development, 15(2), 239-258.
Dlamini, K. (2004). Why Africa is a junior partner in global economy. Retrieved 30 November, 2007, from
www.suntimes.co.za/2004/02/01/news/africa05asp
Erikson, T. (2002). Goal-setting and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
183-189.
European Commission Report. (2008). Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially in non-business studies.
European Commission. (2003). Green paper entrepreneurship in Europe. Enterprise Directorate-General, Brussels.
Forbes, D. P. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 599-626.
GEM. (2002). Global entrepreneurship monitor report. Babson College, Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA and
London School of Economics, London.
Grundling, J . P., & Steynberg, L. (2008). Academic entrepreneurship in South African HEIs. Industry & Higher Education, 22(1),
9-17.
Govender, P. (2007, December 16). Graduates lack basic skills, study finds. Sunday Times.
Hamidi, Y. D., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business &
Enterprise Development, 15(2), 304-320.
Heinonen, J ., & Poikkijoki, S. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: Mission impossible?
Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 80-94.
Hazelhurst, E. (2008). Harvard group details growth roadblocks. Retrieved 25 J une, 2008, from
www.suntimes.co.za/2008/06/18/news/africa05asp
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and training. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Kraak, A. (2008). Incoherence in the South African labour market for intermediate skills. Journal of Education & Work, 22(3),
197-215.
Linan, F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J . C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J . M. (2005). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels. 45th
Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam, 23-27 August 2005.
Luthans, F., & Ibrayeva, E. S. (2006). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy in Central Asian transition economies: Quantitative and
qualitative analyses. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 92-110.
McLaughlin, A. (2004). South African kids find their inner Donald Trump. Retrieved 5 August, 2008, from
www.csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p01s03-woaf.html
North, E. (2002). A decade of entrepreneurship education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 22(1), 24-27.
O’neil, R. C. (2004). Entrepreneurship as a subject at University. The South African experience. Retrieved 23 November, 2007,
from www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1995/pdf/15/pdf
Orford, J ., Wood, E., Fischer, C. Y., Herrington, M., & Segal, N. (2003). Global entrepreneurship monitor: South African
executive report. University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Peteman, N. E., & Kennedy, J . (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28, 129-144.
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2001). Navigating the hostile maze: A framework for Russian entrepreneurship. Academy of
Management Executive, 15(4), 24-36.
Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
64
Enterprise Development, 8(2), 150-158.
Renton, J . (2008). GIBS highlight social entrepreneurship in South Africa. Retrieved 2 J uly, 2008, from
www.mba.co.za/article.aspx
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Others. (2003). Global entrepreneurship monitor executive report. Babson College,
USA.
Robison, P., & Sexton, E. (1994). The effect of education and experience self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing,
9(1), 41-52.
Ronstadt, R. (1985). The educated entrepreneur: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. American Journal of Small
Business, 10(1), 7-23.
Statics South Afica. (2007). Statics South Africa, weekly newsletter, No 13. Retrieved 18 J anuary, 2008, fromhttp://www.statssa.gov.za
Thumdadoo, B., & Gretchen, L. W. (2007). From dust to diamonds: Stories of South African social entrepreneurs. J ohannesburg:
Macmillan.
Urban, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and intentions: Prospects for higher education? SA ePublications, 10(1), 85-103.
Van Aart, I., Van Aart, S., & Buidenhout, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship and new venture management. South Africa: Oxford
University Press.
Van Vuuren, J . J., & Nieman, G. H. (1999). Entrepreneurship education and training: A model for syllabi/curriculum development.
Proceedings of the 45th Conference of the International Council of Business (ICSB), (pp. 1-19). Naples, 20-23 J une.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J ., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions:
Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(3), 388-406.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.
doc_945614962.pdf
Explanation relating to does entrepreneurial education enhance under graduate students entrepreneurial.
China-USA Business Review, ISSN 1537-1514
J anuary 2011, Vol. 10, No. 1, 53-64
53
Does Entrepreneurial Education Enhance Under-graduate
Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy? A Case at one
University of Technology in South Africa
Malefane J ohannes Lebusa
Vaal University of Technology, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa
Post-apartheid youth in South Africa is becoming better educated yet account for most of the growth in
unemployment. Historically, graduate youth holding diplomas from Universities of Technologies used to secure
employment relatively easily and within a reasonable timeframe after graduation. The reality today is that more and
more of these graduates are joining the unemployment queue. The impression of this study is that entrepreneurship
education has to play a role in enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Both a questionnaire and group interview is
used to test students’ level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy post entrepreneurship education course. 40 students were
randomly selected and surveyed using an entrepreneurial self-efficacy questionnaire. Based on the analysis of
quantitative data collected, 15 students were then randomly selected and subjected to group interview to clarify or
confirm the quantitative results. The findings seem that the entrepreneurship education failed in enhancing students’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Keywords: entrepreneurial education, under-graduate student, entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Introduction and Problem Statement
The gap between South Africa’s rich and the poor is among the widest of all the world’s nations. South
Africa’s rich natural resources and advanced financial, communications, energy and transport blocs, are in stark
contrast to the deep-rooted economic imbalances that have trapped millions of South Africans in a cycle of
poverty and unemployment (Renton, 2008). The country still grapples with the profound economic disparities
left by the combined legacies of colonialism and apartheid, and despite government efforts to reduce rising rates
of unemployment, millions of South Africans remain entrenched in cycles of poverty, economic exclusion and
this situation has skewed the job market and sapped entrepreneurial spirit (Thumdadoo & Gretchen, 2007, p. 16).
In the past, Whites were virtually guaranteed jobs, and thus had little incentives to embark on capitalists
ventures. Meanwhile, vast numbers of blacks were unemployed and thus weren’t building job skills and with
exceptions, they weren’t allowed to own businesses (McLaughlin, 2004). According to Hazelhurst (2008), only
13 million (42%) of South Africans have jobs as the country’s capacity to absorb new recruits into the formal
sector has fallen from approximately 64% to less than 4% in the last decade (Davies, 2001, p. 32). According to
Van Vuuren and Nieman (1999, p. 1), economist estimate that an annual real economic growth rate of 7% in
Malefane J ohannes Lebusa, Ph.D., Vaal University of Technology.
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
54
the gross domestic product (GDP) is required to meet the unemployment problems.
The persistent high levels of unemployment in South Africa which stands at 25.5% (StatsSA, 2007) and
the various adverse socio-economic effects associated with it had long been identified as one of the major
stumbling blocks to accelerated growth and poverty reduction in the country. The country’s youth (aged 15-24)
were becoming better educated, yet accounted for most of the growth in unemployment. Graduate
unemployment has been growing fast since 1995, and those with tertiary qualifications made only 3% of South
Africa’s estimated 7.5 million unemployed people (using the broad definition of unemployment, which
includes those people who have given up looking for a job), 82% of them held diplomas especially from
Universities of Technologies while graduate with university degree fare far better (Blaine, 2007). As Kraak
(2008, p. 204) has indicated, the emergence of graduate unemployment, even amongst graduates with
sought-after skills, illustrated the full circle the South African labour market for technically skilled workers has
traversed over the past two to three decades: from well structured arrangements for white artisans and
para-professionals—achieved through effective occupational labour markets and on the basis of the exclusion
of blacks—to the laissez-faire labour market structure of today where no structured pathways exist for the new
black beneficiaries of education and training.
To further highlight the plight of graduates in South Africa, the study conducted by University of Cape
Town indicated that, only 50% of Indians and coloured graduates, 88.9% of Africans and 78.3% of whites were
employed immediately in the engineering field. Those who found jobs in economics were even fewer. The
study also found that students from historically white universities had better employment prospects while those
from historically black institutions generally found it difficult to get jobs (Govender, 2007). As North (2002, p.
24) has further indicated, for young people to escape from vicious circle caused by failings in educational
system, active intervention will be necessary. There is therefore an urgent need for young people to be educated
and trained in the field of entrepreneurship as to change them to pursue an entrepreneurial career, because
entrepreneurship will lead to increased economic efficiencies, brings innovation to market, creates new jobs,
and sustains employments levels (Rae & Carswell, 2001, p. 150). It is believed that an entrepreneurial
education will produce more and better entrepreneurs than were produced in the past (Ronstadt, 1985).
For South African to make a serious dent in the country’s appalling high rate of graduate unemployment
and help government meet the target of reducing unemployment to less than 15% by 2014, it is suggested that
entrepreneurialism informs teaching and learning in Universities of Technologies. These graduates have thus to
be entrepreneurial because the previous economic structure in South Africa was well served by this institutions
in that they provided a resource pool for large corporations. This, however, has developed a student mindset
that favours employment in big business in the formal sector (Co & Mitchell, 2006, p. 349). These graduates
have to develop attributes and skills that form the basis of entrepreneurial mindset and behaviour; They have to
be aware of self-employment/entrepreneurship as possible career options (European Commission, 2008).
Clearly, it is essential to nurture the students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy which refers to the strength of
them believing in successfully running businesses in order to drive and maintain growth (Chen, Greene, &
Crick, 1998, p. 301). There is a need to train these students for small business, entrepreneurial sector in South
African developing economies because entrepreneurship is often invoked as a panacea for unemployment and
economic growth issues. In areas of strong industrial decline, as is the case now in South Africa, the need for an
entrepreneurship culture that might compensate for the loss of firms jobs and incomes became particular
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
55
apparent (Henry, Hill, & Leitch, 2003, p. 14).
Puffer and McCarthy (2001, p. 28) posit that, despite the serious roadblocks, entrepreneurship is still
identified as the business activity most likely to lead to the successful economic change in transitionary
economies. Entrepreneurship is increasingly becoming an indispensable prerequisite for success in an
increasingly globalized and competitive economy and needs to be embedded into the basic fabric of society,
including the institutions of higher learning. Every aspect of Universities of Technologies, thus must seek to
encourage the entrepreneurial spirit. An environment of entrepreneurship within Universities of Technologies
will provide the engine for innovation, risk-taking and pro-activity (Dlamini, 2004). Furthermore, an
entrepreneurial environment in these institutions and society at large will allow students to pursue opportunities
without regard to resources they currently control. The essence of entrepreneurial behavior by these students is
in identifying opportunities and putting useful ideas into practice (Barringer & Ireland, 2006, p. 5). Boyd and
Vozikis in Erikson (2002, p. 183) further indicated that, if we want to increase the amount of entrepreneurship
in society, we need to address individuals’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, which, in turn, drives goal-setting,
motivation and commitment. It is suggested that (O’Neil, 2004, p. 5), the end product of entrepreneurship
education should be a creative individual who understand how to bring an idea from conception to starting and
managing a business because transforming ideas into economic opportunities is the crux of entrepreneurship.
This paper investigated the level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, post entrepreneurship education,
although the alleged benefits of entrepreneurship education have been much extolled by researchers and
educators, there has been little rigorous research on its effects. The guiding question for this was:
Does entrepreneurship education enhance the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the students at University of
Technology?
To answer this question, this paper addresses the following questions:
What does entrepreneurship education mean?
What does entrepreneurial self-efficacy mean?
What is the linkage between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy?
Theoretical foundation of the research question lies in the entrepreneurship education which has to
enhance entrepreneurial self-efficacy of students, a literature review was conducted to explain and examine
what entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy entail and a linkage between the two
concepts was outlined.
Entrepreneurship Education
Despite the fact that the debate surrounding whether or not entrepreneurship can be taught continues,
there has been much interest in entrepreneurship education over the last couple of decades (Henry et al., 2003,
p. 89). Alberti, Sciascia and Poli (2004, p. 5) define entrepreneurship education as the structured formal
conveyance of entrepreneurial competencies, which in turn refer to the concepts, skills and mental awareness
used by individuals during the process of starting and developing their growth-oriented ventures. It is about
entrepreneurial individuals interacting with their environment, thus discovering, evaluating and exploiting
opportunities.
The report by European Commission (EC, 2004) regards entrepreneurial education as an important means
to create a more entrepreneurial mindset among young people and they assert that promoting entrepreneurial
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
56
skills and attitudes provides benefits to society even beyond their application to new ventures. Since
entrepreneurship can positively affect economic growth and development, institutions of higher learning should
attempt to increase the supply of entrepreneurs through entrepreneurship programmes offer at their respective
institutions. The primary purpose of these institutions should be to develop entrepreneurial capacities and
mindsets. In this context, entrepreneurship education programmes can have different objectives, such as
developing entrepreneurial drive among students (raising awareness and motivation), training students in the
skills they need to set up a business and manage its growth, and developing the entrepreneurial ability to
identify and exploit opportunities (EC, 2008). A study of fifteen leading US entrepreneurship education
programs found that the primary goal for majority of the programs was to increase the awareness and
understanding of entrepreneurship as a process. The second major goal was to increase students’ awareness of
entrepreneurship as a career possibility (Hamidi, Wennberg, & Berglund, 2008, p. 306).
J amieson (1984) as listed in Henry et al. (2003, p. 92) has suggested a three-category framework by which
to organize entrepreneurship education. He distinguishes between:
Education about enterprise: Deals mostly with awareness creation, and has the specific objective of
educating students on various aspects of setting up and running a business mostly from a theoretical
perspective.
Education for enterprise: Deals more with the preparation of aspiring entrepreneurs for a career in
self-employment with the specific objective of encouraging participants to set-up and run their own business.
Education in enterprise: Deals mainly with management training for establish entrepreneurs and focuses
on ensuring the growth and future development of the business.
According to European Commission (2008), entrepreneurship education should not be confused with
general business and an economic study, its goal is to promote creativity, innovation and self-employment, and
may include the following elements:
Developing personal attributes and skills that form the basis of an entrepreneurial mindset and behavior
(creativity, sense of initiative, risk-taking, autonomy, self-confidence, leadership, team spirit, etc.);
Raising the awareness of students about self-employment and entrepreneurship as possible career options;
Working on concrete enterprise projects and activities;
Providing specific business skills and knowledge of how to start a company and run it successfully.
According to Heinonen and Poikkijoki (2006, p. 81), entrepreneurial behavior has become more and more
common, calling for better entrepreneurial skills and abilities for dealing with current challenges and uncertain
future. An innovative approach to problem solving, high readiness for change, self-confidence, and creativity
(all attributes related to entrepreneurship) constitute a viable platform for economic development in any society.
Therefore, it has been maintained that the need for entrepreneurship education has never been greater, and the
opportunities have never been so abundant. As Wilson (2004) as listed in Hamidi et al. (2008, p. 306) has
indicated, in Europe, a recent survey among 164 of the largest business schools revealed that over 42% have
established a specific entrepreneurship centers aimed at meeting what has been called “the move from managed
economy to the entrepreneurial economy”.
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy
Forbes (2005, p. 599) defines entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) as the strength of a person’s belief that
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
57
he/she is capable of successfully performing the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship. Individuals believe
that they are capable of performing the tasks associated with new-venture management. Entrepreneurial
self-efficacy comprised a deliberation of tasks that relate to the initiation and development of new ventures,
which is considered emblematic of the entrepreneurial act (Livesay, 1982 as listed in Brice & Spencer, 2007, p.
50). Chen et al. (1998, p. 301) claims that entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects entrepreneurship behaviour
through influencing entrepreneurial decisions. Wilson, Kickul and Marlino (2007, p. 388) further state that
entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been demonstrated to play a key role in determining the level of interest in
pursuing an entrepreneurial career. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is, therefore, viewed as having the capabilities
that can modify a person’s belief in his or her likelihood of completing the tasks required to successfully initiate
and establish a new venture (Bandura, 1986 as listed in Brice & Spencer, 2007, p. 52).
Luthans and Ibrayeva (2006, p. 96) further define entrepreneurial self-efficacy as the entrepreneurs’
beliefs and confidence in their capabilities to affect their environment and become successful by their
behaviours. Importantly, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is influenced by and, in turn, influences performance, it is
not reducible to just entrepreneur skills or knowledge. Rather, entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a personal belief
and confidence to which one believes that he/she is able to successfully start a new business venture. It has the
potential to create change and determine what entrepreneurs will do with the entrepreneurial competencies (i.e.,
knowledge and skills) that they already have (Brice & Spencer, 2007, p. 52). It is the strength of an individual’s
belief that he/she will or not be able to successfully perform the roles and tasks of an entrepreneur.
Zhao et al. (2005, p. 1270) provided empirical evidence that entrepreneurial self-efficacy was positively
related to students’ intentions to start their own business. Boyd and Vozikis as listed in Erikson (2002, p. 184)
indicated that the higher the degree of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the stronger the entrepreneurial motivation.
Entrepreneurial intentions structured on the basis of entrepreneurial self-efficacy represent motivation and
individuals with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy may also have strong occupational intentions for an
entrepreneurial career.
According to Forbes (2005, p. 599), the construct of entrepreneurial self-efficacy is relevant to ongoing
work in the area of economic development, in the sense that entrepreneurial self-efficacy can affect individual’s
decisions to create new ventures, as well as to ongoing work in the area of new-venture strategy, in the sense
that entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence the effectiveness with which individuals manage their ventures
once they have founded them.
Starting one’s own business or initiating a new venture is often described as a purposive and intentional
career choice. Although there can be a wide variety of contextual as well as individual factors that influence the
entrepreneurial choice, the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy has been emphasized as key antecedent.
Accordingly, entrepreneurial self-efficacy affects entrepreneurial career choice and development (Boyd &
Vozikis, 1994 as listed in Chen, Greene, & Crick, 1998, p. 297). It is the assertion of this paper that, a student
with a high level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, who truly believes in his/her capability to execute all the
requirement to perform an entrepreneurial task successfully is more likely to see the positive potential
outcomes that might accrue from a new venture. As a result, the student may sustain more effort through the
entrepreneurial process to achieve these positive outcomes. Therefore, this paper is premised on the belief that
students are motivated to engage in entrepreneurial tasks through enhancement of self-confidence in their
entrepreneurial skills, because the ability of them to start their own businesses and generate their own economic
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
58
momentum, rather than seeking to tap into the momentum created by employer, is central to the positive
evolution of the economy as a whole.
In this paper, it is asserted that individual students might be more inclined to pursue entrepreneurship if they
believe that they possessed the necessary skills to function in such an environment because a high level of
self-efficacy can help individual students maintain their efforts until their initial entrepreneurial goals are met. In
this regard, De Noble, J ung and Ehrlich (1999) point out that an entrepreneur with a high level of self-efficacy,
who truly believes in his/her capability to execute all of the requirements to perform a task successfully is more
likely to see the positive potential outcomes that might accrue from a new venture. As a result, the entrepreneur
may sustain more effort through the entrepreneurial process to achieve these positive outcomes.
The belief in one’s own ability to function effectively as an entrepreneur is key component of perceiving
that entrepreneurship is feasible. Entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence the formation of entrepreneurial
intentions, in this way, among students who have never before started a business as well as among existing or
past entrepreneurs whose entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence their willingness to become repeat or
“serial” entrepreneurs in the future. Individuals with high levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, for example,
are more likely to exhibit persistence and concentration, behaviours that are likely to enhance new venture
performance. By contrast, low levels of self-efficacy are associated with performance-inhibiting behaviours,
such as indecision, distraction, and procrastination, in the performance of various tasks (Forbes, 2005, p. 601).
Lastly, Chen et al. (1998, p. 301) postulate that individuals with a high entrepreneurial self-efficacy
anticipate different outcomes than people with low entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Brockhaus in Chen et al. (1998,
p. 301) contended that because entrepreneurs have a very high belief in their ability to influence the
achievement of business goals, they perceive very low possibility of failure. High entrepreneurial self-efficacy
people are likely to associate challenging situations with rewards such as profit, community recognition and
psychological fulfillment, whereas low entrepreneurial self-efficacy people are likely to harbor images of
failures, such as bankruptcy, disgrace and psychological stress.
The Link Between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy
This paper argues that the greater the belief in one’s own capability to start a new business venture or be
an entrepreneur, the greater the entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and the stronger the entrepreneurial motivation to
achieve ambitious goals. In essence, the belief that one can personally execute the behaviours needed to create
a new venture is professed to enhance the intent to do so (Boyd, 1994 as listed in Brice & Spencer, 2007, p. 48).
From the theory of self-efficacy, it follows that individuals who discard entrepreneurship as a career option do
so not because they necessarily lack the abilities needed, but because they believe themselves to lack these.
And vice versa, higher awareness of one’s capabilities in coping with entrepreneurial tasks will lead to a
stronger motivation to start on one’s own (Hamidi, Wennberg, & Berglund, 2008, p. 309).
Research shows that people who believe that they have the ability to start business are five times more
likely than others to actually attempt to start a business (Orford, Wood, Fischer, Herrington, & Segal, 2003, p.
151). It is conceived that a belief in personal capabilities to start and run a business will be affected by the
education of entrepreneurship individuals will be exposed to during his/her entrepreneurship education because
University of Technologies need to redefine their role in the economy and society, specifically in what they
offer (Co & Mitchell, 2006, p. 349). According to Zhao et al. (2005, p. 1270), academic education can have a
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
59
positive impact on students’ intentions to initiate an entrepreneurial venture. It could be argued that, it may be
possible through entrepreneurial education to build confidence among students and nurture those skill
requirements essential to entrepreneurial process because it is believed that the ideal stage to acquire basic
knowledge about entrepreneurship and to foster a positive attitude towards entrepreneurship is during
childhood and adolescence years (Filion, 1994; Gasse, 1985 as listed in Peterman & Kennedy, 2003, p. 130).
Reynolds, Bygrave and Autio (2003) further indicated that, identifying business opportunities and having
confidence in personal skills to implement a business may be enhanced through education and training with
evidence suggesting that those with more education are more likely to pursue opportunity entrepreneurship
(high growth ventures), which may have overall benefits for national growth.
According to Cooper (2007, p. 3), entrepreneurial education as it is referred in this study as an intervention
that will lead individual’s student to turn ideas into action, is therefore a key competence for all students, helping
them to be more creative and self-confident in whatever they undertake, has the potential to develop knowledge
and skills for enterprise but also, importantly, increase the willingness of individuals to consider entrepreneurship
as a career option. Entrepreneurship education is believed to be able to ameliorate negative students’ perceptions
of the probability and costs of failure, and help dispel cultural stereotypes that entrepreneurship is less than ethical.
GEM findings (GEM, 2002) showed a strong relationship between the level of education of an individual and the
tendency to pursue entrepreneurial activities, and on the other hand, a strong positive relationship exists between
the level of education of the entrepreneur and level of business success.
This study is premised on the notion that, Universities of Technologies, because of many of their students
face unemployment after graduating, need to stimulate the entrepreneurial mindsets of students, encourage
innovative business start-ups, and foster a culture that is friendlier to entrepreneurship and to the growth of
small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). The important role of entrepreneurship education in promoting
more entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviours is now widely recognized because entrepreneurship holds the
promise of growth, expansion and financial gain (Van Aart, I., Van Aart, S., & Bezuidenhout, 2007).
According to Dickson, Solomon and Weaver (2008, p. 250) there is general consensus among researchers,
although not yet definitively proven, seems to that there is a positive correlation between entrepreneurial
education and entrepreneurial activity.
Research Methods
Empirical Study
Entrepreneurship education at this University is offered on semester basis as a service subject for other
departments. This is a classroom based subject with assessment of students taking place on continuous basis by
means of variety of methods that included a formal literature review group assignment, two semester tests per
module and one closed book examination. To gain access to this examination a year mark of 40% is expected.
The weights to determine the year mark consist of two tests averaging 50% plus one projects weighing 50%
that will total hundred percent.
Population
During the undertaking of this research, there were 120 students (n=120) who have studied
entrepreneurship education at this institution. The researcher managed to get hold of the students (n=40) from
Department of Information Technology which was then used for the purpose of this research.
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
60
Sample
To find out the level of students entrepreneurial self-efficacy post entrepreneurship education, a survey
questionnaire was administered to 40 (n=40) and a group interview with 15 (n=15) undergraduate students in
Department of Information Technology at University of Technology were conducted. These students were
targeted because they were deemed the most appropriate to provide information of how the level of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy post entrepreneurship education is.
Research Instrument
A questionnaire and group interview schedule was developed using De Noble (1999) and Forbes (2005)
inventories to measure the level of students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy after entrepreneurial education. Both
instruments sought to test students’ confidence in performing the following entrepreneurial domains:
innovation, management, financial skills, marketing and risk-management.
Procedure
The participants completed a questionnaire for this study which was organized into two sections. The first
section related to respondents’ demographic characteristics. The second section consists of items eliciting
respondents’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy. A four point Likert-type scale was used where respondents had to
indicate their responses as no confidence, little confidence, more confidence and complete confidence. The
balanced four-point scale was chosen in order to eliminate the tendency of respondents to provide socially
desirable responses so as to please the researcher or to appear helpful.
After the analysis of the data from the questionnaire, a follow up group interview schedule with fifteen
(n=15) randomly selected students from the same group of forty (n=40) was undertaken. The purpose of the
interview was to follow up on the level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in a way that would clarify or confirm
the quantitative results.
Reliability and Validity
The Cronbach Alpha coefficient for 15 Likert-type scale questionnaire to assess internal consistency
reliability of the entrepreneurial self-efficacy was used. All questionnaire items yielded a high reliability
Cronbach Alpha coefficient of 0.804 which suggests that the questions comprising the entrepreneurial
self-efficacy dimensions are internally consistent. The inter-item reliability Alpha Cronbach coefficient scored
0.681 for marketing, 0.725 for innovation, 0.777 for management, 0.685 for risk-taking and 0.672 for financial
management. The Alpha Cronbach coefficients satisfied the internal consistency of the items on the
questionnaire scale (Gliem, 2003, p. 87).
According to Leedy and Ormrod (2005, p. 92), content validity is the extent to which a measuring
instrument is representative of the content or domain being measured, that is, the extent to which the content of
the instrument appears to logically examine and comprehensively include the characteristic which intended to
measure. Content validity was constructed by adhering to the five entrepreneurship constructs namely:
marketing, innovation, management, risk-taking and financial management.
Results
Findings from the descriptive data indicate general agreement with items relating to entrepreneurial
self-efficacy as indicated by mean responses of 10.3 (sd=2.654) for marketing, 7.60 (sd=2.175) for innovation,
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
61
8.23 (sd=2.144) for management, 6.87 (sd=1.697) for risk-taking and 4.67 (sd=1.295) for financial
management. Although this indicates a strong prospects of confidence in learners’ confidence in engaging in
entrepreneurial activities, it is also evident that the risk-taking and financial management does not enjoy
practice as the other three dimensions.
Items relating to innovatiness indicated that students are generally confident in engaging in innovative
activity of the new venture. When asked to respond to the statements “How confident they are in developing
new ideas for the new business”, “Developing new products and services” and “Developing new methods of
production, marketing and management”, 53.3%, 63.3% and 53.3% respectively showed confident.
More than half of the respondents (56.6%) showed confident in setting and meeting sales goals for the new
business, 60% showed confident in conducting market analysis for the business and 53.3% showed confident in
developing new market for the new business. However 60% of the respondents showed no confident in
establishing position in product markets for the new business.
The majority of students (70%) are confident in defining the organizational roles, responsibilities and
policies for the business. On whether they are confident in conducting strategic planning of the business, more
than half of the respondents (56.7%) showed confident. More than half (53.3%) of the respondents showed
confident in establishing and achieving goals and objectives for the new business.
It was found, however, that a significant majority of respondents did not show confident with performing
financial analysis for the new business (mentioned by 73.3%). On whether they are confident in developing a
financial system and internal control for the business, 66.7% showed no confident.
It was found, however, that a significant majority of students did not show confident with the notions of
reducing risk and uncertainty for the business (mentioned by 66.6%), taking calculated risks to increase
business viability and growth (mentioned by 56.7%), and making decisions under risks and uncertainty for the
business (mentioned by 66.7%).
Findings from the group interview seems to confirm the findings from the survey that was conducted as it
appeared that students are not comfortable with engaging with risk-taking and financial dimensions of the
businesses. Student stated in uncertain terms their lack of confidence in dealing with the two dimensions. One
student stated:
“I struggled a lot with numbers. I do not see myself succeeding in performing financial activity of my
business, I will employed an accountant”. Other student had this to say: “We haven’t been taught how to take
risk. We prefer to have 100% assurance of success in everything we do”. The other three entrepreneurial
self-efficacy dimensions in the form of marketing, management and innovation, appears that students are
confident in engaging in them. One student had this to say: “Robust marketing of the business is important as
this keep customers informed about your offerings”. Another student explained how to manage the business by
saying: “Happy employees are key, pay them accordingly, and make them part of your business”. One student
had this to say: “Innovation will keep us in business”.
Discussion and Conclusions
Overall, it appears that entrepreneurship education has failed in its primary purpose of enhancing students’
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The two domains of risk-taking and financial management which seems lacking in
these students needs thorough attention as they are also key in enhancing entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
62
One semester exposure to entrepreneurship seems unsuccessful in ensuring entrepreneurial orientation or
more positive expectations about entrepreneurial abilities and careers as expected. As commented by Ronstadt
(1985), the provision of a single course in entrepreneurship will have less impact on the student propensity
toward entrepreneurship and enhancement of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
For the purpose of grooming students with high level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy, the following are
recommended by Cooper, Bottomley and Gordon (2004):
In designing and conducting entrepreneurship courses, this institution should not just train students in
critical entrepreneurial skills and capabilities, but also strengthen their entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
The institution should make conscious efforts in fostering entrepreneurial self-efficacy by involving the
students in “real-life” business design or community small business assistance, by inviting successful
entrepreneurs to lecture, and by verbal persuasion from the instructor and renowned entrepreneurs.
The institution has to move away from solely classroom based offering of the subject as to incorporate as
many diverse types of learning experiences.
The institution should take cognizance that traditional methods (examination-based) of assessment alone
are not very effective in the measurement of individual learning in entrepreneurship. It is suggested in adopting
an innovative approach that will encourage students to explore, reflect on the learning they have achieved, in
terms of both knowledge and understanding, and importantly, on the skills they have developed.
A longitudinal studies focusing on how practical entrepreneurial training can enhance entrepreneurial
self-efficacy and intention among students would be valuable.
It is clear that one of the best ways to grow the South African economy is to encourage more people to
become entrepreneurs. However, to achieve this, education and training at University of Technologies should
shift towards entrepreneurialism in almost all the courses offered, because teaching entrepreneurship is not only
possible, it is highly effective and shows that students who take entrepreneurship training (at any level) are more
likely to start a business and to succeed at it. The positive relationship between education and business creation
has been acknowledged by international literature (Charney & Libecap, 2000; Robinson & Sexton, 1994).
Lastly, entrepreneurship education at Higher Education Institutions, as Grundling and Steynberg (2008, p.
9) has asserted, should increase students’ business know-how and subsequently enhance the quality and
prospects of graduate business ventures. It should occur within a sense-making framework designed to develop
effective entrepreneurial, management and creative skills and also to create a desire in students to follow
entrepreneurship as a career. It should be such that it will provide an understanding of the competitive
landscape in which the prospective entrepreneur will function.
References
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Notes on a ongoing debate. Proceeding of the 14th Annual
IntEnt Conference. University of Napoli Federico II, Italy, J uly 4-7.
Barringer, B. R., & Ireland, R. D. (2006). Entrepreneurship: Successfully launching new ventures. New J ersey: Pearson Prentice
Hall.
Blaine, S. (2007). Most jobless graduates’ hold diplomas. Retrieved 29 November, 2007, from
www.businessday.co.za/2007/03/05/news/africa05asp.
Brice, J . (J .r), & Spencer, B. (2007). Entrepreneurial profiling: A decision policy analysis of the influence of entrepreneurial
self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intent. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 13(2), 47-67.
Charney, A., & Libecap, G. D. (2000). The impact of entrepreneurship education: An evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
63
Programme at the University of Arizona. Tucson: Ewing Marion Kauffaman Foundation.
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers?
Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 295-316.
Co, M. J ., & Mitchell, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: A nationwide survey. Education & Training
Journal, 48(5), 348-359.
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C., & Gordon, J . (2004). Stepping out of classroom and up the ladder of learning. Industry and Higher
Education. February, 11-12.
Davies, T. A. (2001). Entrepreneurship development in South Africa: Redefining the role of tertiary institutions in a reconfigured
higher education system. South African Journal of Higher Education, 15(1), 32-39.
De Noble, A. F., J ung, D., & Ehrlrich. (1999). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: The development of a measure and its relationship to
entrepreneurial action. Retrieved 30 December, 2007, from www.babson.edu/entrep/fer/papers99/I/I_C/IC%20Text.htm
Dickson, P. H., Solomon, G. T., & Weaver, K. M. (2008). Entrepreneurial selection and success: does education matter? Journal
of Small Business & Enterprise Development, 15(2), 239-258.
Dlamini, K. (2004). Why Africa is a junior partner in global economy. Retrieved 30 November, 2007, from
www.suntimes.co.za/2004/02/01/news/africa05asp
Erikson, T. (2002). Goal-setting and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
183-189.
European Commission Report. (2008). Entrepreneurship in higher education, especially in non-business studies.
European Commission. (2003). Green paper entrepreneurship in Europe. Enterprise Directorate-General, Brussels.
Forbes, D. P. (2005). The effects of strategic decision making on entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 599-626.
GEM. (2002). Global entrepreneurship monitor report. Babson College, Kauffman Centre for Entrepreneurship. Boston, MA and
London School of Economics, London.
Grundling, J . P., & Steynberg, L. (2008). Academic entrepreneurship in South African HEIs. Industry & Higher Education, 22(1),
9-17.
Govender, P. (2007, December 16). Graduates lack basic skills, study finds. Sunday Times.
Hamidi, Y. D., Wennberg, K., & Berglund, H. (2008). Creativity in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business &
Enterprise Development, 15(2), 304-320.
Heinonen, J ., & Poikkijoki, S. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: Mission impossible?
Journal of Management Development, 25(1), 80-94.
Hazelhurst, E. (2008). Harvard group details growth roadblocks. Retrieved 25 J une, 2008, from
www.suntimes.co.za/2008/06/18/news/africa05asp
Henry, C., Hill, F., & Leitch, C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and training. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Kraak, A. (2008). Incoherence in the South African labour market for intermediate skills. Journal of Education & Work, 22(3),
197-215.
Linan, F., Rodriguez-Cohard, J . C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J . M. (2005). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels. 45th
Congress of the European Regional Science Association, Amsterdam, 23-27 August 2005.
Luthans, F., & Ibrayeva, E. S. (2006). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy in Central Asian transition economies: Quantitative and
qualitative analyses. Journal of International Business Studies, 37, 92-110.
McLaughlin, A. (2004). South African kids find their inner Donald Trump. Retrieved 5 August, 2008, from
www.csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p01s03-woaf.html
North, E. (2002). A decade of entrepreneurship education in South Africa. South African Journal of Education, 22(1), 24-27.
O’neil, R. C. (2004). Entrepreneurship as a subject at University. The South African experience. Retrieved 23 November, 2007,
from www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/1995/pdf/15/pdf
Orford, J ., Wood, E., Fischer, C. Y., Herrington, M., & Segal, N. (2003). Global entrepreneurship monitor: South African
executive report. University of Cape Town, Cape Town.
Peteman, N. E., & Kennedy, J . (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 28, 129-144.
Puffer, S. M., & McCarthy, D. J. (2001). Navigating the hostile maze: A framework for Russian entrepreneurship. Academy of
Management Executive, 15(4), 24-36.
Rae, D., & Carswell, M. (2001). Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial learning. Journal of Small Business and
DOES ENTREPRENEURIAL EDUCATION ENHANCE UNDER-GRADUATE STUDENTS’
64
Enterprise Development, 8(2), 150-158.
Renton, J . (2008). GIBS highlight social entrepreneurship in South Africa. Retrieved 2 J uly, 2008, from
www.mba.co.za/article.aspx
Reynolds, P. D., Bygrave, W. D., Autio, E., & Others. (2003). Global entrepreneurship monitor executive report. Babson College,
USA.
Robison, P., & Sexton, E. (1994). The effect of education and experience self-employment success. Journal of Business Venturing,
9(1), 41-52.
Ronstadt, R. (1985). The educated entrepreneur: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. American Journal of Small
Business, 10(1), 7-23.
Statics South Afica. (2007). Statics South Africa, weekly newsletter, No 13. Retrieved 18 J anuary, 2008, fromhttp://www.statssa.gov.za
Thumdadoo, B., & Gretchen, L. W. (2007). From dust to diamonds: Stories of South African social entrepreneurs. J ohannesburg:
Macmillan.
Urban, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education and intentions: Prospects for higher education? SA ePublications, 10(1), 85-103.
Van Aart, I., Van Aart, S., & Buidenhout, S. (2007). Entrepreneurship and new venture management. South Africa: Oxford
University Press.
Van Vuuren, J . J., & Nieman, G. H. (1999). Entrepreneurship education and training: A model for syllabi/curriculum development.
Proceedings of the 45th Conference of the International Council of Business (ICSB), (pp. 1-19). Naples, 20-23 J une.
Wilson, F., Kickul, J ., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions:
Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 31(3), 388-406.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S. E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265-1272.
doc_945614962.pdf