Description
In this such a file regarding the relationship between exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial.
1 iiSouthern African Business Review Volume 18 Number 1 2014
The relationship between exposure to
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
self-ef?cacy
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
1 A B S T R A C T
1The purpose of this research was to investigate whether students
with different levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education would
perceive their own entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy differently from those
without such exposure, and whether there is a relationship between
perceived entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy and entrepreneurial intent. The
study was carried out by means of a survey. The sample consisted of
355 ?nal-year commerce students from two South African universities
based in rural provinces, namely the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. SPSS
was used to analyse the data. The results revealed that students who
had had exposure to entrepreneurship education were statistically
signi?cantly different from those who had not in terms of the way
in which they perceived their own entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy.
Entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy had a statistically signi?cant relationship
with entrepreneurial intent.
2Key words: entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy, self-ef?cacy, social
learning theory, South Africa, entrepreneurial intention, rural provinces
Introduction
1South Africa as a developing country is faced with a high rate of unemployment,
averaging 24.1% (Statistics South Africa 2014). The importance of entrepreneurship
as a mechanism for economic growth and development is widely acknowledged
(Bosma, Jones, Autio & Levie 2007). By starting new ventures, entrepreneurs create
Dr M.J. Malebana was a doctoral student at the University of South Africa. Prof E. Swanepoel is in the Department of Busi-
ness Management, University of South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
2
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
new job opportunities, which help in reducing unemployment and alleviating
poverty (Herrington, Kew & Kew 2010). However, research findings indicate that
the total entrepreneurial activity of South Africa from 2002 to 2012 was below
average (Turton & Herrington 2013). Moreover, the country has very low percentages
of people who believe that they have entrepreneurial capabilities (40%) and who have
entrepreneurial intentions (14%) (Turton & Herrington 2013). Thompson (2009: 676)
defines entrepreneurial intentions as “self-acknowledged convictions by individuals
that they intend to set up new business ventures and consciously plan to do so at some
point in the future”. Previous research suggests that entrepreneurial intentions are
the foundations for understanding the new venture-creation process (Bird 1988). It
has also been reported that individuals start new ventures based on the belief that
they have the necessary skills and knowledge to do so (Bosma et al. 2007).
In his social learning theory, Bandura (1997) postulates that perceived self-efficacy
is a major determinant of intention and directly affects performance. Entrepreneurial
self-efficacy is the degree to which individuals believe that they have the necessary
skills to successfully start a new business venture (Brice & Spencer 2007). Perceived
self-efficacy deals with the judgements relating to what individuals can do with the
skills they possess. Self-efficacy beliefs affect individuals’ choices, the level of effort
they put into an activity, how long they persevere when they encounter obstacles and
failures, their resilience to adversity and the level of accomplishments they realise
(Bandura 1986).
Given the foregoing, rural provinces experience significantly lower
entrepreneurial activity rates than their urban counterparts (Herrington et al.
2010). Low entrepreneurial activity rates in rural areas are exacerbated by the
lack of infrastructure development, smaller markets and low level of skills. Efforts
to encourage entrepreneurship in these provinces could be an effective method
of reducing unemployment and stimulating rural economies. Henry, Hill and
Leitch (2005) report that there is consensus among researchers that some aspects
of entrepreneurship can be successfully taught. This belief has led to an increase in
the number of entrepreneurship education and training programmes over the last
two decades in both developed and developing countries (Fayolle, Gailly & Lassas-
Clerc 2006). The United States Small Business Administration (US SBA) (2006)
reports that there has been an enormous increase in the volume of empirical research
on entrepreneurship education, especially research focusing on entrepreneurial
intentions as the foundation for entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship
education facilitates the creation of start-ups by changing students’ mindsets and
developing their entrepreneurial orientation measured through entrepreneurial
intentions (Fayolle 2004).
3
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
The purpose of this research was to investigate whether students with different
levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education perceive their own entrepreneurial
self-efficacy differently from those without such exposure, and whether there is a
relationship between perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intent.
Literature review
1This study was based on the view that intentions provide an understanding of how new
ventures emerge. These intentions can be influenced positively by entrepreneurship
education and enhanced entrepreneurial self-efficacy. As a result, the literature
review draws primarily on entrepreneurial intent and self-efficacy theories, and the
role of entrepreneurship education in the formation of entrepreneurial intent and the
development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Entrepreneurship as an intentional activity
1According to Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000), planned behaviours such as
entrepreneurship can be predicted accurately using intention-based models. The
two dominant and compatible entrepreneurial intention models are Shapero and
Sokol’s model of the entrepreneurial event (SEE) (Shapero & Sokol 1982) and Ajzen’s
theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 2005). The SEE model suggests that
entrepreneurial intentions can be predicted from perceived desirability, perceived
feasibility and propensity to act (Shapero & Sokol 1982; Krueger et al. 2000).
According to this model, individuals’ intentions to start a business derive from the
personal attractiveness of starting a business, the extent to which they feel personally
capable of starting a business and their personal predisposition to act on their own
decisions (Krueger et al. 2000).
The theory of planned behaviour suggests that individuals’ intentions are the
most important immediate determinant of whether they will perform a particular
action or not (Ajzen 2005). In the TPB, entrepreneurial intentions can be predicted
with a high degree of accuracy from the attitude towards the behaviour, subjective
norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen 2005). Intentions to engage in
the entrepreneurial behaviour are formed based on an individual’s favourable or
unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour, perceived personal ability or difficulty in
performing the behaviour, and perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform
the behaviour.
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
4
In a comparison of the SEE model and the TPB model, Krueger et al. (2000)
found that the two models are related in that they both have an element that is
conceptually associated with perceived self-efficacy (perceived behavioural control
in the TPB model and perceived feasibility in the SEE model). Both the SEE model
and the TPB model have been widely applied in research that assessed the impact
of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intent (for example, Fayolle et al.
2006; Fayolle 2004; Liñán 2004; Peterman & Kennedy 2003).
Entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy and the phases and tasks in the
entrepreneurial life-cycle
1Researchers suggest that entrepreneurial self-efficacy should focus on individuals’
perceptions regarding their ability to perform entrepreneurial tasks (Kickul, Gundry,
Barbosa & Whitcanack 2009; Kickul & D’Intino 2005) or the skills required to launch
a new venture (Sequeira, Mueller & McGee 2007). Research on entrepreneurial self-
efficacy owes its existence to earlier research by Chen, Greene and Crick (1998) and
De Noble, Jung and Ehrlich (1999). These researchers found that entrepreneurial self-
efficacy is significantly associated with the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur or
entrepreneurial intention. These findings are supported by Sesen (2013), Akmaliah,
Pihie and Bagheri (2013), and Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013). Entrepreneurs
should be capable of performing entrepreneurial tasks in the four phases of the
entrepreneurial life-cycle. According to Kickul and D’Intino (2005), and McGee,
Peterson, Mueller and Sequeira (2009), these phases include the searching phase,
planning phase, marshalling phase and implementation phase. The venture-creation
process begins with the development of a unique idea or identification of a special
opportunity, followed by conversion of the idea into a feasible business plan or business
concept, the marshalling of resources to bring the new venture into existence, and
ultimately applying good management skills and principles to grow and ensure the
survival of the venture (McGee et al. 2009).
Kickul and D’Intino (2005) found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors such
as interpersonal and networking skills, uncertainty management skills, product
development skills, and procurement and allocation of critical resources were
significantly related to the instrumental tasks within the entrepreneurial process
and the intention to start a new venture. Instrumental tasks that were related to
intentions to start or launch a new business involved raising money to start a business,
convincing others to invest in the business, and implementing tasks for managing a
small business (Kickul and D’Intino 2005). McGee et al. (2009) found that nascent
entrepreneurs were more confident in performing tasks in the four phases of the
5
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
entrepreneurial life-cycle than individuals in the general population who had not yet
started pursuing entrepreneurship.
The in?uencing role of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
intent and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
1An overwhelming majority of studies from several different countries have reported
that exposure to entrepreneurship education impacts positively on the antecedents of
entrepreneurial intent (Peterman & Kennedy 2003; Liñán 2004; Fayolle et al. 2006;
Guerrero, Lavín & Álvarez 2009) and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (De Noble et
al. 1999; Alvarez & Jung 2004; Ramayah & Harun 2005), and encourages students
to start their own businesses (Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-Laham 2007; Jones et al.
2008). Some authors report that entrepreneurship education is significantly related
to entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention (Zhao, Hills & Seibert
2005; Dickson, Solomon & Weaver 2008; Muofhe & Du Toit 2011). Blackford, Sebora
and Whitehill (2008) found that post-graduation start-up of a new firm by students
who have taken an entrepreneurship course is directly related to entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. According to Forbes (2005), entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence
an individual’s decision to start a business and the effectiveness with which they
manage their ventures once they have founded them. Research findings indicate that
self-confidence in performing entrepreneurial tasks is strongly related to behaviour
leading to the formation of a new venture (Sequeira et al. 2007; McGee et al. 2009).
Sources of entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy and entrepreneurship education
1Bandura (1986) asserted that individuals’ self-knowledge about their own efficacy
depends on principal sources of information that include mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others, verbal persuasion and
judgement of physiological states. Previous research suggests that these sources of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be developed through entrepreneurship education
(Zhao et al. 2005; Radu & Loué 2008). Segal, Schoenfeld and Borgia (2007) found
that certain educational activities have a positive impact on the key sources of self-
efficacy. The fact that entrepreneurship education can enhance entrepreneurial
self-efficacy by impacting on its sources has implications for entrepreneurship
educators. It suggests that certain actions that entrepreneurship educators integrate
into their teaching are vital in raising perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Zhao et al. (2005) assert that entrepreneurship courses should incorporate a variety of
learning experiences that promote the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
6
Entrepreneurship educators can provide mastery experiences by allowing students
to practise what they learn (Krueger 2000; Radu & Loué 2008) and learn from their
own setbacks and failures (Bandura 2009). The use of case studies and exposing
students to entrepreneurial role models provide vicarious experiences that increase
their confidence in starting a new venture (Laviolette & Radu 2008). Interacting with
entrepreneurial role models who may be invited as guest speakers enables students
to learn through social comparison (Bandura 2009). Entrepreneurship educators
can use social persuasion to increase students’ beliefs in their ability to succeed in
entrepreneurial tasks (Bandura 1986; Laviolette, Lefebvre & Brunel 2012). Luthans
(2008) states that the way in which people feel, physically and emotionally, influences
their capability assessments. Entrepreneurship educators can help students deal with
their feelings by offering psychological and emotional support (Krueger & Brazeal
1994).
Research methodology
Data collection and measures
1This study was conducted by means of survey research using a structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed based on validated questionnaires
used in previous entrepreneurial intent studies that have focused on the key variables
of this study, namely exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. All the entrepreneurial intent questions were adopted without alteration
from the Entrepreneurial Intent Questionnaire developed by Liñán and Chen (2006,
2009) and used by Liñán (2008) and Guerrero et al. (2009). Entrepreneurial intent was
measured using a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).
The use of five-point Likert scales is also found in previous entrepreneurial intent
studies such as Gupta, Turban, Wasti and Sikdar (2009) and Schwarz, Wdowiak,
Almer-Jarz and Breitenecker (2009). Table 1 shows the questions that were used to
collect the data on entrepreneurial intent. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for the entrepreneurial intent scale was 0.903.
Data on levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education were collected by means
of a nominal scale: students who had had exposure to entrepreneurship education
for a period of three years; those who had not been exposed to entrepreneurship
education; and those who had been exposed to entrepreneurship education for a
period of six months.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy was measured by asking students to indicate their
level of confidence in their ability to carry out entrepreneurial tasks in the four
7
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
Table 1: Questions measuring entrepreneurial intent
iItems
1. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur (Entint1).
2. My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur (Entint2).
3. I will make every effort to start and run my own business (Entint3).
4. I am determined to create a business venture in the future (Entint4).
5. I do not have doubts about ever starting my own business in the future (Entint5).
6. I have very seriously thought of starting a business in the future (Entint6).
7. I have a strong intention to start a business in the future (Entint7).
8. My quali?cation has contributed positively towards my interest in starting a business (Entint8).
9. I had a strong intention to start my own business before I started with my quali?cation (Entint9).
1phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle using a five-point Likert scale (1=very low
confidence to 5=very high confidence) based on the measures adopted from McGee
et al. (2009), Kickul and D’Intino (2005), and Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006), as
illustrated in Table 2. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entrepreneurial
self-efficacy scale was 0.940. This suggests that the scale had a high level of reliability,
which compares favourably with the scales used by McGee et al. (2009) and Kolvereid
and Isaksen (2006).
The following demographic control variables were included in the study: gender;
previous or current employment status (work experience); prior start-up experience
(currently owns a business or has tried to start a business before); and entrepreneurial
role models (in the family, friends who are currently running businesses, or knowledge
of other people who are entrepreneurs). Previous research found that these variables
are related to entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Muofhe & Du Toit 2011; Kickul, Wilson,
Marlino & Barbosa 2008; Wilson, Kickul & Marlino 2007; Zhao et al. 2005; Boyd &
Vozikis 1994).
Population and sampling method
1The population comprised 814 third-year students registered for full-time studies in
2010 for the following three diplomas (or groups of diplomas): National Diploma:
Entrepreneurship/Small Business Management (ND: E/SBM=120 students),
National Diplomas: Internal Auditing, Cost and Management Accounting and
Financial Information Systems (NDs: IAUD, CMA and FIS=514 students) and
National Diploma: Management (ND: Management=180 students) at two selected
universities in Limpopo province and the Eastern Cape province. The two universities,
a comprehensive university in the Eastern Cape and a university of technology in
Limpopo, both offer qualifications of the type presented by the former technikons.
The researcher had intended to use a census survey of all 814 students, but owing to
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
8
Table 2: Measures of ESE and tasks in the entrepreneurial life-cycle
iiItems
iiiSearching phase
1. Generate a new idea for a product or service (ESE1).
2. Identify the need for a new product or service (ESE2).
3. Design a product or service that will satisfy customer needs and wants (ESE3).
ivPlanning phase
4. Estimate customer demand for a new product or service (ESE4).
5. Determine a competitive price for a new product or service (ESE5).
6. Estimate the amount of start-up funds and working capital necessary to start a business (ESE6).
7. Design an effective marketing/advertising campaign for a new product or service (ESE7).
vMarshalling phase
8. Get others to identify with and believe in the vision and plans for a new business (ESE8).
9. Make contact with and exchange information with others (ESE9).
10. Clearly and concisely explain verbally/in writing the business idea in simple terms (ESE10).
11. Develop relationships with key people who are connected to sources of capital (ESE11).
12. Develop and maintain favourable relationships with potential investors (ESE12).
13. Identify potential sources of funding for investment in the business (ESE13).
viImplementation phase
14. Recruit and train new employees (ESE14).
15. Delegate tasks and responsibilities to employees in the business (ESE15).
16. Supervise employees (ESE16).
17. Deal effectively with day-to-day problems and crises (ESE17).
18. Inspire, encourage and motivate employees (ESE18).
19. Develop a working environment that encourages people to try out new things (ESE19).
20. Persist in the face of adversity (ESE20).
21. Make decisions under uncertainty and risk (ESE21).
22. Organise and maintain the ?nancial records of the business (ESE22).
23. Manage ?nancial assets of the business (ESE23).
24. Read and interpret ?nancial statements (ESE24).
1circumstances beyond the researcher’s control, only 355 students participated in the
study.
Three groups of students from each university, representing the three levels of
exposure to entrepreneurship education, participated in the study. ND: E/SBM
students had Small Business Management as their major subject for three years,
while NDs: IAUD, CMA and FIS students were exposed to Entrepreneurial Skills
during the first semester of their three-year qualifications. The three-year exposure
to entrepreneurship education offered through Small Business Management
I (first year), II (second year) and III (third year) was extensive compared to the
Entrepreneurial Skills course, which offered students introductory knowledge about
entrepreneurial concepts for only six months. ND Management students were not
9
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
exposed to any content related to entrepreneurship in their qualification. Of the
sample of 355 students, 70 were ND: E/SBM students with three years’ exposure to
entrepreneurship education; 221 were NDs: IAUD, CMA or FIS students with six
months’ exposure to entrepreneurship education; and 64 were ND: Management
students without any exposure to entrepreneurship education.
In line with previous research on entrepreneurial intent, this sample of students
from rural universities was chosen, because as final-year students they were facing
important career decisions upon completion of their studies, and starting their own
business was a possible option. Another reason for using this sample of students
was their different levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education, which met the
requirements for this study. The researcher requested permission from the Heads of
Department at the two selected institutions to involve their lecturers and students in
the research project. Students completed the questionnaires during their lectures and
returned them immediately to their lecturers after completion. The only group that
was given the questionnaires to complete at home was the entrepreneurship students
in the Eastern Cape province.
Statistical analysis
1The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the data.
Because the data did not have a normal distribution, non-parametric statistics were
applied. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) define non-parametric statistics as
statistics designed for use when the data are not normally distributed. These statistical
techniques include the Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test and the Somer’s d
test. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to test differences
in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy between the groups based on their different
levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education. The reason for using the Kruskal-
Wallis test was that it is suitable for testing differences between groups when the data
are ordinal. Somer’s d test was used to test the strength and statistical significance
of the association between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the intention of the
respondents to start a business.
Results
Demographic pro?le of the sample
1The respondents were 355 final-year commerce students who were registered full-time
for the 2010 academic year. Of these, 77.7% were from a comprehensive university in
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
10
the Eastern Cape and 22.3% from a university of technology in Limpopo . In terms
of the qualifications enrolled for at the two institutions, 19.7% were enrolled for the
ND: E/SBM, 18% for the ND: Management and 62.3% for the NDs: IAUD, CMA
or FIS. Within the sample from the comprehensive university in the Eastern Cape,
19.2% of the respondents were registered for the ND: E/SBM (three years’ exposure
to entrepreneurship education), 66.3% for the NDs: IAUD, CMA or FIS (six months’
exposure to entrepreneurship education) and 14.5% for the ND: Management (no
exposure to entrepreneurship education). Within the sample from the university
of technology in Limpopo, 21.5% of the respondents were registered for the ND:
E/SBM (three years’ exposure to entrepreneurship education), 48.1% for the NDs:
IAUD, CMA or FIS (six months’ exposure to entrepreneurship education) and 30.4%
for the ND: Management (no exposure to entrepreneurship education).
Of the respondents, 67.8% were female and 32.2% were male. The majority (76.1%)
of the respondents were aged between 14 and 24 years; 22.5% were between 25 and 34
years; and just over 1% were between 35 and 64 years. The majority of the respondents
had never been employed (69.8%), and 95.9% were currently unemployed. In terms
of entrepreneurial knowledge, 6.6% of the respondents were ‘currently running their
own businesses’; 34% ‘had family members who are running a business’; 28.1% ‘had
friends who are currently running businesses’; 57.8% ‘knew other people who are
entrepreneurs’; and 26.7% ‘had tried to start a business before’. The overlap between
the percentages of the respondents who were currently unemployed and those who
were currently running their own businesses suggests that some respondents did not
consider running one’s own business as being employed.
The in?uencing role of demographic factors on perceived entrepreneurial
self-ef?cacy
1The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine whether the
respondents differed statistically significantly from one another in perceived
entrepreneurial self-efficacy based on demographic factors. The results revealed
that these factors had a minimal effect on the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the
respondents. Male respondents differed statistically significantly (at the 1% and 5%
level of significance) from female respondents on six entrepreneurial self-efficacy
factors, which represented all four phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle (ESE1, p
= 0.002; ESE5, p = 0.004; ESE13, p = 0.044; ESE14, p = 0.009; ESE17, p = 0.033;
ESE22, p = 0.019). The respondents differed statistically significantly (at the 5%
level of significance) on six entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors as a result of work
11
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
experience (ESE7, p = 0.048; ESE13, p = 0.036; ESE14, p = 0.040; ESE16, p =
0.027; ESE20, p = 0.016; ESE21, p = 0.038).
The respondents from an entrepreneurial family background differed statistically
significantly (at the 5% level of significance) from those who did not have an
entrepreneurial family background on one entrepreneurial self-efficacy factor (ESE3,
p = 0.034). Statistically significant differences were found between having friends
who were entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The respondents who had
friends who were entrepreneurs differed statistically significantly (at the 1% and 5%
level of significance) from those who did not have friends who were entrepreneurs
on three entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE1, p = 0.002; ESE10, p = 0.010;
ESE17, p = 0.035). The results revealed statistically significant differences (at the
1% and 5% level of significance) between respondents who knew other people who
were entrepreneurs and those who did not on six entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors
(ESE1, p = 0.008; ESE2, p = 0.007; ESE3, p = 0.032; ESE8, p = 0.010; ESE9, p =
0.016; ESE10, p = 0.039).
The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the respondents who were currently running
a business and those who had tried to start a business before differed statistically
significantly from those who did not have such experience. The respondents who
were currently running a business differed statistically significantly (at the 5% level
of significance) from those who were not running businesses on five entrepreneurial
self-efficacy factors (ESE1, p = 0.044; ESE2, p = 0.033; ESE9, p = 0.034; ESE10,
p = 0.013; ESE11, p = 0.045). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the respondents
who had tried to start a business before differed statistically significantly (at the 1%
and 5% level of significance) from those who did not have prior start-up experience
on five entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE1, p = 0.009; ESE2, p = 0.004;
ESE9, p = 0.034; ESE10, p = 0.040; ESE17, p = 0.009).
Differences in perceived entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy based on the quali?-
cations of the respondents
1The results in Table 3 indicate that statistically significant differences (at the
1% and 5% level of significance) between the groups were found on 14 of the 24
entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (see Table 2). Statistically significant differences
in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy between the three groups of respondents
were recorded in the four phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle as follows:
• Searching phase: Statistically significant differences in perceived entrepreneurial
self-efficacy were found on all three entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE1,
p = 0.0347; ESE2, p = 0.0086; ESE3, p = 0.0270). The results indicate that the
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
12
groups differed statistically significantly on their ability to develop a new business
idea, recognise a business opportunity, and design a product or service to take
advantage of that opportunity.
• Planning phase: The three groups of respondents differed statistically significantly
on two of the four entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE4, p = 0.0305; ESE7,
p = 0.0039). It seems that the differences pertain to marketing abilities rather
than to financial abilities.
• Marshalling phase: Statistically significant differences in perceived entrepreneurial
self-efficacy of the three groups of respondents were found on two of the six
entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors: (ESE8, p = 0.0320; ESE13, p = 0.0357).
Thus it seems that all the respondents had similar levels of confidence regarding
their abilities to communicate and build interpersonal relationships, addressed by
the last four entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors.
• Implementation phase: The three groups of respondents differed statistically
significantly in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors on seven of the 11
factors: (ESE17, p = 0.0093; ESE18, p = 0.0044; ESE19, p = 0.0106; ESE20, p
= 0.0020; ESE21, p = 0.0205; ESE22, p = 0.0088; ESE23, p = 0.0252). It could
therefore be deduced that all the respondents had similar levels of confidence
in recruiting and training employees, delegating tasks and responsibilities to
employees and supervising them, as well as reading and interpreting financial
statements.
1It was evident that there were some statistically significant differences between
respondents in terms of how they perceived their own entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was therefore used to determine how the
groups of respondents differed from one another in perceived entrepreneurial self-
efficacy based on their different levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education.
The results in Table 4 revealed that the ND: E/SBM students (who had three years’
exposure to entrepreneurship education) were statistically significantly different (at
the 1% and 5% level of significance) from the ND: Management students (who had
no exposure to entrepreneurship education) in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy
on 12 of the 24 factors, which represented all phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle.
The ND: E/SBM students had higher mean rank values than the ND: Management
students for these 12 entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors.
13
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
Table 3: Kruskal-Wallis test results for the differences between ND: E/SBM students,
NDs: IAUD, CMA or FIS students and ND: Management students in perceived
entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
viiEntrepreneurial self-ef?cacy viiiChi-square
ixDegrees
of
freedom
xp-value
xiSearching phase
xiiESE1: My ability to generate a new idea for a product or
service.
xiii6.7234 xiv2 xv0.0347*
xviESE2: My ability to identify the need for a new product or
service.
xvii9.5207 xviii2 xix0.0086**
xxESE3: My ability to design a product or service that will
satisfy customer needs and wants.
xxi7.2269 xxii2 xxiii0.0270*
xxivPlanning phase
xxvESE4: My ability to estimate customer demand for a new
product or service.
xxvi6.9833 xxvii2 xxviii0.0305*
xxixESE7: My ability to design an effective marketing/
advertising campaign for a new product or service.
xxx11.0711 xxxi2 xxxii0.0039**
xxxiiiMarshalling phase
xxxivESE8: My ability to get others to identify with and believe
in my vision and plans for a new business.
xxxv6.8810 xxxvi2 xxxvii0.0320*
xxxviiiESE13: My ability to identify potential sources of funding for
investments in my business.
xxxix6.6672 xl2 xli0.0357*
xliiImplementation phase
xliiiESE17: My ability to deal effectively with day-to-day
problems and crises.
xliv9.3852 xlv2 xlvi0.0093**
xlviiESE18: My ability to inspire, encourage and motivate my
employees.
xlviii10.8696 xlix2 l0.0044**
liESE19: My ability to develop a working environment that
encourages people to try out new things.
lii9.0958 liii2 liv0.0106*
lvESE20: My ability to persist in the face of adversity. lvi12.4770 lvii2 lviii0.0020**
lixESE21: My ability to make decisions under uncertainty and
risk.
lx7.7739 lxi2 lxii0.0205*
lxiiiESE22: My ability to organise and maintain the ?nancial
records of my business.
lxiv9.4554 lxv2 lxvi0.0088**
lxviiESE23: My ability to manage the ?nancial assets of my
business.
lxviii7.3597 lxix2 lxx0.0252*
lxxi* p
In this such a file regarding the relationship between exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial.
1 iiSouthern African Business Review Volume 18 Number 1 2014
The relationship between exposure to
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
self-ef?cacy
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
1 A B S T R A C T
1The purpose of this research was to investigate whether students
with different levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education would
perceive their own entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy differently from those
without such exposure, and whether there is a relationship between
perceived entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy and entrepreneurial intent. The
study was carried out by means of a survey. The sample consisted of
355 ?nal-year commerce students from two South African universities
based in rural provinces, namely the Eastern Cape and Limpopo. SPSS
was used to analyse the data. The results revealed that students who
had had exposure to entrepreneurship education were statistically
signi?cantly different from those who had not in terms of the way
in which they perceived their own entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy.
Entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy had a statistically signi?cant relationship
with entrepreneurial intent.
2Key words: entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy, self-ef?cacy, social
learning theory, South Africa, entrepreneurial intention, rural provinces
Introduction
1South Africa as a developing country is faced with a high rate of unemployment,
averaging 24.1% (Statistics South Africa 2014). The importance of entrepreneurship
as a mechanism for economic growth and development is widely acknowledged
(Bosma, Jones, Autio & Levie 2007). By starting new ventures, entrepreneurs create
Dr M.J. Malebana was a doctoral student at the University of South Africa. Prof E. Swanepoel is in the Department of Busi-
ness Management, University of South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
2
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
new job opportunities, which help in reducing unemployment and alleviating
poverty (Herrington, Kew & Kew 2010). However, research findings indicate that
the total entrepreneurial activity of South Africa from 2002 to 2012 was below
average (Turton & Herrington 2013). Moreover, the country has very low percentages
of people who believe that they have entrepreneurial capabilities (40%) and who have
entrepreneurial intentions (14%) (Turton & Herrington 2013). Thompson (2009: 676)
defines entrepreneurial intentions as “self-acknowledged convictions by individuals
that they intend to set up new business ventures and consciously plan to do so at some
point in the future”. Previous research suggests that entrepreneurial intentions are
the foundations for understanding the new venture-creation process (Bird 1988). It
has also been reported that individuals start new ventures based on the belief that
they have the necessary skills and knowledge to do so (Bosma et al. 2007).
In his social learning theory, Bandura (1997) postulates that perceived self-efficacy
is a major determinant of intention and directly affects performance. Entrepreneurial
self-efficacy is the degree to which individuals believe that they have the necessary
skills to successfully start a new business venture (Brice & Spencer 2007). Perceived
self-efficacy deals with the judgements relating to what individuals can do with the
skills they possess. Self-efficacy beliefs affect individuals’ choices, the level of effort
they put into an activity, how long they persevere when they encounter obstacles and
failures, their resilience to adversity and the level of accomplishments they realise
(Bandura 1986).
Given the foregoing, rural provinces experience significantly lower
entrepreneurial activity rates than their urban counterparts (Herrington et al.
2010). Low entrepreneurial activity rates in rural areas are exacerbated by the
lack of infrastructure development, smaller markets and low level of skills. Efforts
to encourage entrepreneurship in these provinces could be an effective method
of reducing unemployment and stimulating rural economies. Henry, Hill and
Leitch (2005) report that there is consensus among researchers that some aspects
of entrepreneurship can be successfully taught. This belief has led to an increase in
the number of entrepreneurship education and training programmes over the last
two decades in both developed and developing countries (Fayolle, Gailly & Lassas-
Clerc 2006). The United States Small Business Administration (US SBA) (2006)
reports that there has been an enormous increase in the volume of empirical research
on entrepreneurship education, especially research focusing on entrepreneurial
intentions as the foundation for entrepreneurial behaviour. Entrepreneurship
education facilitates the creation of start-ups by changing students’ mindsets and
developing their entrepreneurial orientation measured through entrepreneurial
intentions (Fayolle 2004).
3
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
The purpose of this research was to investigate whether students with different
levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education perceive their own entrepreneurial
self-efficacy differently from those without such exposure, and whether there is a
relationship between perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intent.
Literature review
1This study was based on the view that intentions provide an understanding of how new
ventures emerge. These intentions can be influenced positively by entrepreneurship
education and enhanced entrepreneurial self-efficacy. As a result, the literature
review draws primarily on entrepreneurial intent and self-efficacy theories, and the
role of entrepreneurship education in the formation of entrepreneurial intent and the
development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Entrepreneurship as an intentional activity
1According to Krueger, Reilly and Carsrud (2000), planned behaviours such as
entrepreneurship can be predicted accurately using intention-based models. The
two dominant and compatible entrepreneurial intention models are Shapero and
Sokol’s model of the entrepreneurial event (SEE) (Shapero & Sokol 1982) and Ajzen’s
theory of planned behaviour (TPB) (Ajzen 2005). The SEE model suggests that
entrepreneurial intentions can be predicted from perceived desirability, perceived
feasibility and propensity to act (Shapero & Sokol 1982; Krueger et al. 2000).
According to this model, individuals’ intentions to start a business derive from the
personal attractiveness of starting a business, the extent to which they feel personally
capable of starting a business and their personal predisposition to act on their own
decisions (Krueger et al. 2000).
The theory of planned behaviour suggests that individuals’ intentions are the
most important immediate determinant of whether they will perform a particular
action or not (Ajzen 2005). In the TPB, entrepreneurial intentions can be predicted
with a high degree of accuracy from the attitude towards the behaviour, subjective
norms and perceived behavioural control (Ajzen 2005). Intentions to engage in
the entrepreneurial behaviour are formed based on an individual’s favourable or
unfavourable evaluation of the behaviour, perceived personal ability or difficulty in
performing the behaviour, and perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform
the behaviour.
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
4
In a comparison of the SEE model and the TPB model, Krueger et al. (2000)
found that the two models are related in that they both have an element that is
conceptually associated with perceived self-efficacy (perceived behavioural control
in the TPB model and perceived feasibility in the SEE model). Both the SEE model
and the TPB model have been widely applied in research that assessed the impact
of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intent (for example, Fayolle et al.
2006; Fayolle 2004; Liñán 2004; Peterman & Kennedy 2003).
Entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy and the phases and tasks in the
entrepreneurial life-cycle
1Researchers suggest that entrepreneurial self-efficacy should focus on individuals’
perceptions regarding their ability to perform entrepreneurial tasks (Kickul, Gundry,
Barbosa & Whitcanack 2009; Kickul & D’Intino 2005) or the skills required to launch
a new venture (Sequeira, Mueller & McGee 2007). Research on entrepreneurial self-
efficacy owes its existence to earlier research by Chen, Greene and Crick (1998) and
De Noble, Jung and Ehrlich (1999). These researchers found that entrepreneurial self-
efficacy is significantly associated with the likelihood of becoming an entrepreneur or
entrepreneurial intention. These findings are supported by Sesen (2013), Akmaliah,
Pihie and Bagheri (2013), and Douglas and Fitzsimmons (2013). Entrepreneurs
should be capable of performing entrepreneurial tasks in the four phases of the
entrepreneurial life-cycle. According to Kickul and D’Intino (2005), and McGee,
Peterson, Mueller and Sequeira (2009), these phases include the searching phase,
planning phase, marshalling phase and implementation phase. The venture-creation
process begins with the development of a unique idea or identification of a special
opportunity, followed by conversion of the idea into a feasible business plan or business
concept, the marshalling of resources to bring the new venture into existence, and
ultimately applying good management skills and principles to grow and ensure the
survival of the venture (McGee et al. 2009).
Kickul and D’Intino (2005) found that entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors such
as interpersonal and networking skills, uncertainty management skills, product
development skills, and procurement and allocation of critical resources were
significantly related to the instrumental tasks within the entrepreneurial process
and the intention to start a new venture. Instrumental tasks that were related to
intentions to start or launch a new business involved raising money to start a business,
convincing others to invest in the business, and implementing tasks for managing a
small business (Kickul and D’Intino 2005). McGee et al. (2009) found that nascent
entrepreneurs were more confident in performing tasks in the four phases of the
5
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
entrepreneurial life-cycle than individuals in the general population who had not yet
started pursuing entrepreneurship.
The in?uencing role of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial
intent and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
1An overwhelming majority of studies from several different countries have reported
that exposure to entrepreneurship education impacts positively on the antecedents of
entrepreneurial intent (Peterman & Kennedy 2003; Liñán 2004; Fayolle et al. 2006;
Guerrero, Lavín & Álvarez 2009) and entrepreneurial self-efficacy (De Noble et
al. 1999; Alvarez & Jung 2004; Ramayah & Harun 2005), and encourages students
to start their own businesses (Souitaris, Zerbinati & Al-Laham 2007; Jones et al.
2008). Some authors report that entrepreneurship education is significantly related
to entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention (Zhao, Hills & Seibert
2005; Dickson, Solomon & Weaver 2008; Muofhe & Du Toit 2011). Blackford, Sebora
and Whitehill (2008) found that post-graduation start-up of a new firm by students
who have taken an entrepreneurship course is directly related to entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. According to Forbes (2005), entrepreneurial self-efficacy can influence
an individual’s decision to start a business and the effectiveness with which they
manage their ventures once they have founded them. Research findings indicate that
self-confidence in performing entrepreneurial tasks is strongly related to behaviour
leading to the formation of a new venture (Sequeira et al. 2007; McGee et al. 2009).
Sources of entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy and entrepreneurship education
1Bandura (1986) asserted that individuals’ self-knowledge about their own efficacy
depends on principal sources of information that include mastery experiences,
vicarious experiences of observing the performances of others, verbal persuasion and
judgement of physiological states. Previous research suggests that these sources of
entrepreneurial self-efficacy can be developed through entrepreneurship education
(Zhao et al. 2005; Radu & Loué 2008). Segal, Schoenfeld and Borgia (2007) found
that certain educational activities have a positive impact on the key sources of self-
efficacy. The fact that entrepreneurship education can enhance entrepreneurial
self-efficacy by impacting on its sources has implications for entrepreneurship
educators. It suggests that certain actions that entrepreneurship educators integrate
into their teaching are vital in raising perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Zhao et al. (2005) assert that entrepreneurship courses should incorporate a variety of
learning experiences that promote the development of entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
6
Entrepreneurship educators can provide mastery experiences by allowing students
to practise what they learn (Krueger 2000; Radu & Loué 2008) and learn from their
own setbacks and failures (Bandura 2009). The use of case studies and exposing
students to entrepreneurial role models provide vicarious experiences that increase
their confidence in starting a new venture (Laviolette & Radu 2008). Interacting with
entrepreneurial role models who may be invited as guest speakers enables students
to learn through social comparison (Bandura 2009). Entrepreneurship educators
can use social persuasion to increase students’ beliefs in their ability to succeed in
entrepreneurial tasks (Bandura 1986; Laviolette, Lefebvre & Brunel 2012). Luthans
(2008) states that the way in which people feel, physically and emotionally, influences
their capability assessments. Entrepreneurship educators can help students deal with
their feelings by offering psychological and emotional support (Krueger & Brazeal
1994).
Research methodology
Data collection and measures
1This study was conducted by means of survey research using a structured
questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed based on validated questionnaires
used in previous entrepreneurial intent studies that have focused on the key variables
of this study, namely exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
self-efficacy. All the entrepreneurial intent questions were adopted without alteration
from the Entrepreneurial Intent Questionnaire developed by Liñán and Chen (2006,
2009) and used by Liñán (2008) and Guerrero et al. (2009). Entrepreneurial intent was
measured using a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree).
The use of five-point Likert scales is also found in previous entrepreneurial intent
studies such as Gupta, Turban, Wasti and Sikdar (2009) and Schwarz, Wdowiak,
Almer-Jarz and Breitenecker (2009). Table 1 shows the questions that were used to
collect the data on entrepreneurial intent. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
for the entrepreneurial intent scale was 0.903.
Data on levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education were collected by means
of a nominal scale: students who had had exposure to entrepreneurship education
for a period of three years; those who had not been exposed to entrepreneurship
education; and those who had been exposed to entrepreneurship education for a
period of six months.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy was measured by asking students to indicate their
level of confidence in their ability to carry out entrepreneurial tasks in the four
7
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
Table 1: Questions measuring entrepreneurial intent
iItems
1. I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur (Entint1).
2. My professional goal is to be an entrepreneur (Entint2).
3. I will make every effort to start and run my own business (Entint3).
4. I am determined to create a business venture in the future (Entint4).
5. I do not have doubts about ever starting my own business in the future (Entint5).
6. I have very seriously thought of starting a business in the future (Entint6).
7. I have a strong intention to start a business in the future (Entint7).
8. My quali?cation has contributed positively towards my interest in starting a business (Entint8).
9. I had a strong intention to start my own business before I started with my quali?cation (Entint9).
1phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle using a five-point Likert scale (1=very low
confidence to 5=very high confidence) based on the measures adopted from McGee
et al. (2009), Kickul and D’Intino (2005), and Kolvereid and Isaksen (2006), as
illustrated in Table 2. The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the entrepreneurial
self-efficacy scale was 0.940. This suggests that the scale had a high level of reliability,
which compares favourably with the scales used by McGee et al. (2009) and Kolvereid
and Isaksen (2006).
The following demographic control variables were included in the study: gender;
previous or current employment status (work experience); prior start-up experience
(currently owns a business or has tried to start a business before); and entrepreneurial
role models (in the family, friends who are currently running businesses, or knowledge
of other people who are entrepreneurs). Previous research found that these variables
are related to entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Muofhe & Du Toit 2011; Kickul, Wilson,
Marlino & Barbosa 2008; Wilson, Kickul & Marlino 2007; Zhao et al. 2005; Boyd &
Vozikis 1994).
Population and sampling method
1The population comprised 814 third-year students registered for full-time studies in
2010 for the following three diplomas (or groups of diplomas): National Diploma:
Entrepreneurship/Small Business Management (ND: E/SBM=120 students),
National Diplomas: Internal Auditing, Cost and Management Accounting and
Financial Information Systems (NDs: IAUD, CMA and FIS=514 students) and
National Diploma: Management (ND: Management=180 students) at two selected
universities in Limpopo province and the Eastern Cape province. The two universities,
a comprehensive university in the Eastern Cape and a university of technology in
Limpopo, both offer qualifications of the type presented by the former technikons.
The researcher had intended to use a census survey of all 814 students, but owing to
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
8
Table 2: Measures of ESE and tasks in the entrepreneurial life-cycle
iiItems
iiiSearching phase
1. Generate a new idea for a product or service (ESE1).
2. Identify the need for a new product or service (ESE2).
3. Design a product or service that will satisfy customer needs and wants (ESE3).
ivPlanning phase
4. Estimate customer demand for a new product or service (ESE4).
5. Determine a competitive price for a new product or service (ESE5).
6. Estimate the amount of start-up funds and working capital necessary to start a business (ESE6).
7. Design an effective marketing/advertising campaign for a new product or service (ESE7).
vMarshalling phase
8. Get others to identify with and believe in the vision and plans for a new business (ESE8).
9. Make contact with and exchange information with others (ESE9).
10. Clearly and concisely explain verbally/in writing the business idea in simple terms (ESE10).
11. Develop relationships with key people who are connected to sources of capital (ESE11).
12. Develop and maintain favourable relationships with potential investors (ESE12).
13. Identify potential sources of funding for investment in the business (ESE13).
viImplementation phase
14. Recruit and train new employees (ESE14).
15. Delegate tasks and responsibilities to employees in the business (ESE15).
16. Supervise employees (ESE16).
17. Deal effectively with day-to-day problems and crises (ESE17).
18. Inspire, encourage and motivate employees (ESE18).
19. Develop a working environment that encourages people to try out new things (ESE19).
20. Persist in the face of adversity (ESE20).
21. Make decisions under uncertainty and risk (ESE21).
22. Organise and maintain the ?nancial records of the business (ESE22).
23. Manage ?nancial assets of the business (ESE23).
24. Read and interpret ?nancial statements (ESE24).
1circumstances beyond the researcher’s control, only 355 students participated in the
study.
Three groups of students from each university, representing the three levels of
exposure to entrepreneurship education, participated in the study. ND: E/SBM
students had Small Business Management as their major subject for three years,
while NDs: IAUD, CMA and FIS students were exposed to Entrepreneurial Skills
during the first semester of their three-year qualifications. The three-year exposure
to entrepreneurship education offered through Small Business Management
I (first year), II (second year) and III (third year) was extensive compared to the
Entrepreneurial Skills course, which offered students introductory knowledge about
entrepreneurial concepts for only six months. ND Management students were not
9
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
exposed to any content related to entrepreneurship in their qualification. Of the
sample of 355 students, 70 were ND: E/SBM students with three years’ exposure to
entrepreneurship education; 221 were NDs: IAUD, CMA or FIS students with six
months’ exposure to entrepreneurship education; and 64 were ND: Management
students without any exposure to entrepreneurship education.
In line with previous research on entrepreneurial intent, this sample of students
from rural universities was chosen, because as final-year students they were facing
important career decisions upon completion of their studies, and starting their own
business was a possible option. Another reason for using this sample of students
was their different levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education, which met the
requirements for this study. The researcher requested permission from the Heads of
Department at the two selected institutions to involve their lecturers and students in
the research project. Students completed the questionnaires during their lectures and
returned them immediately to their lecturers after completion. The only group that
was given the questionnaires to complete at home was the entrepreneurship students
in the Eastern Cape province.
Statistical analysis
1The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse the data.
Because the data did not have a normal distribution, non-parametric statistics were
applied. Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2009) define non-parametric statistics as
statistics designed for use when the data are not normally distributed. These statistical
techniques include the Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test and the Somer’s d
test. The Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to test differences
in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy between the groups based on their different
levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education. The reason for using the Kruskal-
Wallis test was that it is suitable for testing differences between groups when the data
are ordinal. Somer’s d test was used to test the strength and statistical significance
of the association between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the intention of the
respondents to start a business.
Results
Demographic pro?le of the sample
1The respondents were 355 final-year commerce students who were registered full-time
for the 2010 academic year. Of these, 77.7% were from a comprehensive university in
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
10
the Eastern Cape and 22.3% from a university of technology in Limpopo . In terms
of the qualifications enrolled for at the two institutions, 19.7% were enrolled for the
ND: E/SBM, 18% for the ND: Management and 62.3% for the NDs: IAUD, CMA
or FIS. Within the sample from the comprehensive university in the Eastern Cape,
19.2% of the respondents were registered for the ND: E/SBM (three years’ exposure
to entrepreneurship education), 66.3% for the NDs: IAUD, CMA or FIS (six months’
exposure to entrepreneurship education) and 14.5% for the ND: Management (no
exposure to entrepreneurship education). Within the sample from the university
of technology in Limpopo, 21.5% of the respondents were registered for the ND:
E/SBM (three years’ exposure to entrepreneurship education), 48.1% for the NDs:
IAUD, CMA or FIS (six months’ exposure to entrepreneurship education) and 30.4%
for the ND: Management (no exposure to entrepreneurship education).
Of the respondents, 67.8% were female and 32.2% were male. The majority (76.1%)
of the respondents were aged between 14 and 24 years; 22.5% were between 25 and 34
years; and just over 1% were between 35 and 64 years. The majority of the respondents
had never been employed (69.8%), and 95.9% were currently unemployed. In terms
of entrepreneurial knowledge, 6.6% of the respondents were ‘currently running their
own businesses’; 34% ‘had family members who are running a business’; 28.1% ‘had
friends who are currently running businesses’; 57.8% ‘knew other people who are
entrepreneurs’; and 26.7% ‘had tried to start a business before’. The overlap between
the percentages of the respondents who were currently unemployed and those who
were currently running their own businesses suggests that some respondents did not
consider running one’s own business as being employed.
The in?uencing role of demographic factors on perceived entrepreneurial
self-ef?cacy
1The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine whether the
respondents differed statistically significantly from one another in perceived
entrepreneurial self-efficacy based on demographic factors. The results revealed
that these factors had a minimal effect on the entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the
respondents. Male respondents differed statistically significantly (at the 1% and 5%
level of significance) from female respondents on six entrepreneurial self-efficacy
factors, which represented all four phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle (ESE1, p
= 0.002; ESE5, p = 0.004; ESE13, p = 0.044; ESE14, p = 0.009; ESE17, p = 0.033;
ESE22, p = 0.019). The respondents differed statistically significantly (at the 5%
level of significance) on six entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors as a result of work
11
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
experience (ESE7, p = 0.048; ESE13, p = 0.036; ESE14, p = 0.040; ESE16, p =
0.027; ESE20, p = 0.016; ESE21, p = 0.038).
The respondents from an entrepreneurial family background differed statistically
significantly (at the 5% level of significance) from those who did not have an
entrepreneurial family background on one entrepreneurial self-efficacy factor (ESE3,
p = 0.034). Statistically significant differences were found between having friends
who were entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. The respondents who had
friends who were entrepreneurs differed statistically significantly (at the 1% and 5%
level of significance) from those who did not have friends who were entrepreneurs
on three entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE1, p = 0.002; ESE10, p = 0.010;
ESE17, p = 0.035). The results revealed statistically significant differences (at the
1% and 5% level of significance) between respondents who knew other people who
were entrepreneurs and those who did not on six entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors
(ESE1, p = 0.008; ESE2, p = 0.007; ESE3, p = 0.032; ESE8, p = 0.010; ESE9, p =
0.016; ESE10, p = 0.039).
The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the respondents who were currently running
a business and those who had tried to start a business before differed statistically
significantly from those who did not have such experience. The respondents who
were currently running a business differed statistically significantly (at the 5% level
of significance) from those who were not running businesses on five entrepreneurial
self-efficacy factors (ESE1, p = 0.044; ESE2, p = 0.033; ESE9, p = 0.034; ESE10,
p = 0.013; ESE11, p = 0.045). The entrepreneurial self-efficacy of the respondents
who had tried to start a business before differed statistically significantly (at the 1%
and 5% level of significance) from those who did not have prior start-up experience
on five entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE1, p = 0.009; ESE2, p = 0.004;
ESE9, p = 0.034; ESE10, p = 0.040; ESE17, p = 0.009).
Differences in perceived entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy based on the quali?-
cations of the respondents
1The results in Table 3 indicate that statistically significant differences (at the
1% and 5% level of significance) between the groups were found on 14 of the 24
entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (see Table 2). Statistically significant differences
in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy between the three groups of respondents
were recorded in the four phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle as follows:
• Searching phase: Statistically significant differences in perceived entrepreneurial
self-efficacy were found on all three entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE1,
p = 0.0347; ESE2, p = 0.0086; ESE3, p = 0.0270). The results indicate that the
M.J. Malebana & E. Swanepoel
12
groups differed statistically significantly on their ability to develop a new business
idea, recognise a business opportunity, and design a product or service to take
advantage of that opportunity.
• Planning phase: The three groups of respondents differed statistically significantly
on two of the four entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors (ESE4, p = 0.0305; ESE7,
p = 0.0039). It seems that the differences pertain to marketing abilities rather
than to financial abilities.
• Marshalling phase: Statistically significant differences in perceived entrepreneurial
self-efficacy of the three groups of respondents were found on two of the six
entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors: (ESE8, p = 0.0320; ESE13, p = 0.0357).
Thus it seems that all the respondents had similar levels of confidence regarding
their abilities to communicate and build interpersonal relationships, addressed by
the last four entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors.
• Implementation phase: The three groups of respondents differed statistically
significantly in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors on seven of the 11
factors: (ESE17, p = 0.0093; ESE18, p = 0.0044; ESE19, p = 0.0106; ESE20, p
= 0.0020; ESE21, p = 0.0205; ESE22, p = 0.0088; ESE23, p = 0.0252). It could
therefore be deduced that all the respondents had similar levels of confidence
in recruiting and training employees, delegating tasks and responsibilities to
employees and supervising them, as well as reading and interpreting financial
statements.
1It was evident that there were some statistically significant differences between
respondents in terms of how they perceived their own entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
The nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test was therefore used to determine how the
groups of respondents differed from one another in perceived entrepreneurial self-
efficacy based on their different levels of exposure to entrepreneurship education.
The results in Table 4 revealed that the ND: E/SBM students (who had three years’
exposure to entrepreneurship education) were statistically significantly different (at
the 1% and 5% level of significance) from the ND: Management students (who had
no exposure to entrepreneurship education) in perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy
on 12 of the 24 factors, which represented all phases of the entrepreneurial life-cycle.
The ND: E/SBM students had higher mean rank values than the ND: Management
students for these 12 entrepreneurial self-efficacy factors.
13
Exposure to entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
Table 3: Kruskal-Wallis test results for the differences between ND: E/SBM students,
NDs: IAUD, CMA or FIS students and ND: Management students in perceived
entrepreneurial self-ef?cacy
viiEntrepreneurial self-ef?cacy viiiChi-square
ixDegrees
of
freedom
xp-value
xiSearching phase
xiiESE1: My ability to generate a new idea for a product or
service.
xiii6.7234 xiv2 xv0.0347*
xviESE2: My ability to identify the need for a new product or
service.
xvii9.5207 xviii2 xix0.0086**
xxESE3: My ability to design a product or service that will
satisfy customer needs and wants.
xxi7.2269 xxii2 xxiii0.0270*
xxivPlanning phase
xxvESE4: My ability to estimate customer demand for a new
product or service.
xxvi6.9833 xxvii2 xxviii0.0305*
xxixESE7: My ability to design an effective marketing/
advertising campaign for a new product or service.
xxx11.0711 xxxi2 xxxii0.0039**
xxxiiiMarshalling phase
xxxivESE8: My ability to get others to identify with and believe
in my vision and plans for a new business.
xxxv6.8810 xxxvi2 xxxvii0.0320*
xxxviiiESE13: My ability to identify potential sources of funding for
investments in my business.
xxxix6.6672 xl2 xli0.0357*
xliiImplementation phase
xliiiESE17: My ability to deal effectively with day-to-day
problems and crises.
xliv9.3852 xlv2 xlvi0.0093**
xlviiESE18: My ability to inspire, encourage and motivate my
employees.
xlviii10.8696 xlix2 l0.0044**
liESE19: My ability to develop a working environment that
encourages people to try out new things.
lii9.0958 liii2 liv0.0106*
lvESE20: My ability to persist in the face of adversity. lvi12.4770 lvii2 lviii0.0020**
lixESE21: My ability to make decisions under uncertainty and
risk.
lx7.7739 lxi2 lxii0.0205*
lxiiiESE22: My ability to organise and maintain the ?nancial
records of my business.
lxiv9.4554 lxv2 lxvi0.0088**
lxviiESE23: My ability to manage the ?nancial assets of my
business.
lxviii7.3597 lxix2 lxx0.0252*
lxxi* p