Entrepreneurial intention of university students: A moderated approach using entrepreneurship education

Abstract

This study aims to examine the impact of students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy on their opportunity recognition capability after their exposure to classroom-based entrepreneurship education, leading to the development of intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. A detailed questionnaire was used to collect data from 351 students pursuing undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Results confirm that the student’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences their intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity directly and indirectly via their opportunity recognition capability. Also, entrepreneurship education significantly moderates the link between students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition capability. These results have practical implications for universities and policymakers, as universities that are not providing entrepreneurship education can adopt the same module of classroom education. Also, policymakers can frame policies directing institutions to start similar kinds of entrepreneurship education programs, even at the intermediate level, particularly in lower-middle-income countries.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship education entrepreneurial self-efficacy entrepreneurial intention opportunity recognition

Introduction

Entrepreneurship is the activity whereby an individual or a body of individuals utilize coordinated efforts and methods to explore opportunities to generate and develop value by meeting desires and necessities via innovation and creativity, regardless of the available resources (Hassan et al., 2022; Karimi, 2020). Entrepreneurship has attracted the curiosity of both researchers and governments in recent decades. The primary source of concern is the growing need for entrepreneurs that can assist in stimulating financial growth by constructing fresh concepts and transforming them into profitable ventures. Entrepreneurial efforts bring not just technical advancement but are also responsible for employment generation and economic development (Lopes et al., 2022). A country with a low economic growth rate can rely on new start-ups and small firms to repair its economic growth (Heilmaier and Ling, 2021).

Higher educational institutions (HEI’s) providing entrepreneurship education, play a vital role in the development of a feasible entrepreneurial ecosystem (Isenberg, 2011; Lopes et al., 2022). As entrepreneurship education helps in inculcating an entrepreneurial mind-set in students (Hassan et al., 2020, 2021), leading to the development of intention towards undertaking an entrepreneurial activity (Daniel, 2016). Researchers believe that entrepreneurship education enhances student’s entrepreneurial knowledge and makes them believe in their ability to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Ubierna et al., 2014; Lopes et al., 2022). Additionally, according to Indian Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship (MSDE) 2021–2022 report, India would benefit greatly from investing in programmes that encourage and teach entrepreneurship. This shows how important entrepreneurship education is for the future growth and competitiveness of lower middle income country like India, which is struggling with the increased unemployment (Hassan et al., 2020). Based on the importance of entrepreneurship education, India has started giving more attention towards promoting entrepreneurship education courses even in the major Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT’s), Indian Institutes of Management (IIM’s), and centrally funded universities.

Entrepreneurship can be stimulated through entrepreneurial education. The majority of the studies have discovered a link between entrepreneurship education (EE) and entrepreneurial intention (EI) (Saeed et al., 2015; Fietze and Boyd, 2017). EI is necessary so that students can try and mould their entrepreneurial skills to make an informed decision about their intention to pursue entrepreneurship as a career (Fretschner and Weber, 2013). EI is a cognitive perspective that occurs before activity and emphasises a specific objective, such as setting up a new enterprise (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Molaei et al., 2014). Entrepreneurial process begins from the onset an individual develops the intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Gartner et al., 1994; Al Mamun et al., 2016).

Without considering the quality of education and other crucial aspects affecting students’ intentionality, policymakers and governments will not succeed in achieving the objectives they set out to achieve via policies they framed (Sahoo and Panda, 2019). There has been a great deal of arguments regarding the effectiveness of the classroom entrepreneurship education being provided to students (Hassan et al., 2021) and its role in influencing the efficacy, opportunity recognition capability, and development of the entrepreneurial intention among university students. Studies with conflicting findings have contributed to the growing debate over its effects (Daniel, 2016). Students’ entrepreneurial intention is a key variable used to predict entrepreneurial action, and some research suggests that entrepreneurship education programmes have a positive effect on the intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity (Küttim et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2013). However, some researchers have found no effect from entrepreneurship education at all (Von Graevenitz et al., 2010; Lorz, 2011; Oosterbeek et al., 2010). Case studies, group discussions, business/computer game simulations, role models, business plan development, and guest speakers are just a few examples of the types of active methods that have been shown to be effective in encouraging entrepreneurial behaviour in students (Hassan et al., 2021; Mwasalwiba, 2010). The current study is based on examining the effectiveness of classroom based entrepreneurship education in developing the efficacy and opportunity recognition capability among students in Indian settings, which enhances their chances of undertaking an entrepreneurial activity. The classroom based entrepreneurship education involves theoretical sessions, interactive sessions with entrepreneurs, case-based discussions and practical problem solving, with the aim of providing necessary basic entrepreneurial knowledge and building competence among students to cope with the changing business environment affecting their intention to undertake a new venture.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) is another important aspect in determining EI (Nowiński, et al., 2019). ESE is a set of cognitive thought processes that entrepreneurs use to discover their strengths and utilise them to achieve better results (Wang et al., 2016). Entrepreneurs with high self-efficacy are more organised and dedicated (Hassan et al., 2020). It can also assist entrepreneurs in seeing new possibilities and acting effectively through their will to solve issues, enthusiasm for addressing challenges (Forbes, 2005), managerial abilities, and attitude to take risks (Wang et al., 2016).

Entrepreneurs need not only to build intention but also to be efficient in detecting possibilities overlooked by others or are unable to recognise and then utilise these possibilities promptly and effectively if they want to be successful in starting and managing new businesses (Santos et al., 2016). Opportunity recognition (OR) is seeing an opportunity to start a new venture or substantially improve the status of an established one, both of which result in increased potential profit (Hunter, 2013). Entrepreneurship education and recognising entrepreneurial opportunities have been shown to have a favourable link (Manesh and Rialp-Criado (2019). Wen-Long et al. (2014) discovered that a successful structure and implementation of an education program substantially influenced the ability to recognise entrepreneurial opportunities (Wen-Long et al., 2014).

The aim of this paper is to analyse the impact of students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy on their opportunity recognition capability after their exposure to classroom based entrepreneurship education, leading to the development of intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Also this study contributes to the entrepreneurship education theories by examining the feasibility of conventional classroom based entrepreneurship education approach in developing the student’s intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Research evolved in the entrepreneurship education field prompted for more inclusive framework by examining the role of various cognitive factors in addition to the antecedents of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) in determining the entrepreneurial intention of students (Hassan et al. 2021), based on this current study developed an inclusive conceptual framework by examining the direct and indirect impact of student’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy, mediated by opportunity recognition, and moderated by the entrepreneurship education (as shown in Figure 1). Thus, the following research questions are going to be investigated in this paper:

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

What is the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy, opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial intention of students?

Is there any mediating role of students’ opportunity recognition capability in between their entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention relationship?

Is there any moderating role of entrepreneurship education in students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention relationship?

Is the classroom entrepreneurship education effective enough to influence the entrepreneurial intention of students?

Theoretical foundation

Researchers argue that entrepreneurial behaviour is the aftermath of entrepreneurial intentions (Molaei et al., 2014). These intentions are affected by various cognitive and contextual factors (Lopes et al., 2022; Hassan et al., 2022). Various theories have been developed over the years in order to predict the entrepreneurial intention of an individual. One of the prominent among them is the Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour (TPB), which is based on three cognitive antecedents’ viz., attitude towards entrepreneurship, subjective social norms and perceived behavioural control. Studies have shown that TPB has the ability to explain 45% of variance in predicting the entrepreneurial intention, indicating that 55% of variance remains unexplained (Van Gelderen et al., 2008; Liñán and Chen, 2009). Researchers have suggested an extension of the TPB by examining the role of other cognitive and contextual factors in predicting the entrepreneurial intention of an individual (Karimi, 2020). Based on these suggestions, current study incorporates entrepreneurial self-efficacy, opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education in the theoretical model in order to predict the entrepreneurial intention of students.

Literature review

ESE and EI

ESE is a motivational source as it boosts one’s self-confidence and faith in one’s ability which influences one’s cognitive degree (Dissanayake, 2013; Kuo et al., 2004), i.e., the idea is linked with self-evaluation, which determines the efforts and courage to face adversity and decides the steps to be taken (Kuo et al., 2004). A person can undertake better in a job with a greater level of self-efficacy; contrarily, he tends to ignore a job with low self-efficacy due to fear of failure (Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015).

This topic has grown in popularity throughout the period, especially in entrepreneurship-related research (Chen et al., 1998; Markman and Baron, 2003). The study by Krueger and Brazeal (1994) regarded ESE as necessary for entrepreneurship (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994). ESE acts as an entrepreneurial behaviour stimulator (Nowiński et al., 2019; Laviolette et al., 2012), as ESE assists in proceeding through the entrepreneurial process by successfully recognising the right opportunity and tackling the challenges faced during the process (Kumar, 2007). Researchers have confirmed a favourable relationship between ESE and EI in various nations, like the USA, South Korea, and Poland etc. Therefore, multiple studies have proven that a rise in ESE increases EI (Hassan et al., 2020; DePillis and Reardon, 2007). Based on this premise of determination of entrepreneurial intention in students through their self-efficacy, following hypothesis has been proposed:

ESE positively influences the EI of students.

ESE and OR

OR is the mental ability (or abilities) whereby a person deduces that he has discovered an opportunity (Timmons, 1989; Baron, 2006). According to Ardichvili et al. (2003, p. 106), the substantial elements that influence the main operation of opportunity recognition and growth leading to business formation are entrepreneurial vigilance; asymmetric information and prior understanding; social connections; personality attributes such as positivity, self-efficacy and innovation, and the kind of opportunity on its own. While experts argue that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is an essential precondition of opportunity recognition (De Koning and Muzyka, 1999; Park, 2005), there is little data to support this claim. Opportunity recognition happens before and after a venture’s establishment (Lumpkin et al., 2001). Nevertheless, much of the existing research on ESE and its potential impact on OR is theoretical (Park, 2005). Ozgen (2003) discovered empirical proof of a favourable association between ESE and OR in his study. Therefore, it would be interesting to analyse the impact of ESE on OR, and hence following hypothesis has been proposed:

ESE positively influences the OR capability of students.

OR and EI

EI leads and steers a person’s efforts to create and introduce a fresh business idea (Bird, 1988). A large amount of research suggests that entrepreneurial intention plays a crucial part in the choice to initiate a new venture (Liñán and Chen, 2009). Consequently, in the past few years, the model of employment status choice, which concentrates on entrepreneurial intention, has attracted much attention in entrepreneurship studies (e.g., Engle et al., 2010; Iakovleva et al., 2011; Karimi et al., 2013, 2014). Krueger et al., (2000) discovered that intention models present an excellent chance to improve entrepreneurial knowledge and forecasting capabilities.

Entrepreneurial intentions are driven by identifying and recognising opportunities which significantly impact business start-up decisions (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2010; Wasdani and Mathew, 2014; Shane and Nicolaou, 2015). Studies have suggested a positive association between OR and EI of an individual (Krueger, 2009), as individuals who are good at recognising the opportunities are more inclined towards entrepreneurship (Hassan et al., 2020). Based on the premise that better opportunity recognition capability enhances an individual’s chances of undertaking an entrepreneurial activity, thereby developing the entrepreneurial intention, following hypothesis has been proposed.

OR capability positively influences the EI of students.

OR as a mediator between ESE and EI

Identifying opportunity is viewed as a cognitive characteristic of an entrepreneur that influences his other cognitive abilities (Yitshaki and Kropp, 2016). With ESE, OR also increases the EI of a person (Puni et al., 2018; Hansen et al., 2011), and because being able to recognise, select, and implement the right opportunity will actually result in a successful business. A person’s entrepreneurial mind-set encourages them to search for the right business opportunities, increasing their ESE (Hassan et al., 2020; Ozgen, 2003). Following the literature review, it has been determined that ESE and OR are positively associated (Anwar et al., 2022).

Opportunity recognition is one of the essential steps in entrepreneurship because doing so helps one to choose an idea before implementing it into an enterprise and embrace and utilise all the necessary abilities (Hunter, 2013; Santos et al., 2016; Okudan and Rzasa, 2006; Hassan et al., 2020). Opportunity recognition improves one’s positive attitude and behavioural intention toward entrepreneurship. The identification of a potential favourable business opportunity lays the groundwork for the development of a new enterprise (Timmons, 1989; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993; Boyd and Vozikis, 1994; Santos et al., 2016). People better at spotting these opportunities are more likely to commence their businesses and have a higher propensity for entrepreneurship (Manesh and Rialp-Criado, 2019; Hassan et al., 2020). Based on the premise that individuals having belief and trust in their capabilities to successfully proceed through the entrepreneurial process are more likely to have better opportunity recognising capability, leading to the development of intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity, following hypothesis has been formulated:

The OR capability of student’s mediates the ESE and EI relationship.

EE positively moderates the relationship between ESE and OR

Self-efficacy or self-reliance in a specific field is determined by a person’s introspection of talents and capabilities. This idea represents a person’s inner opinions about whether they possess the skills deemed essential for job completion and the faith that they will be capable of translating those abilities into desired output successfully (Bandura, 1989, 1997). Self-efficacy is a helpful term for studying people’s behaviour since studies reveal that it affects a person’s choice, effort level, and persistence (Chen et al., 2004).

A study reveals that the signs learners take from an entrepreneurship course in an academic context affect their self-efficacy perceptions (Von Graevenitz et al., 2010); another study shows contrary results (Hmieleski and Baron, 2008). In certain circumstances, they may diminish; perhaps due to a realisation during the course that entrepreneurship is much more than simply eye-catching (Oosterbeek et al., 2010). EE can play a vital part in promoting self-efficacy in people by equipping chances to perform feasibility analyses, design business strategies, and participate in on-going businesses (Wilson et al., 2007). ESE is a prerequisite for OR (De Koning and Muzyka, 1999; Park, 2005). Recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities is a skill that can be cultivated just like any other, and the best method to do so is through entrepreneurship education (DeTienne and Chandler, 2004). Role of EE in entrepreneurship has always been a debateable topic, due to its mixed results. Studies like (Hassan et al., 2021) have prompted for more rigorous approaches in examining the role of entrepreneurship education particularly the classroom entrepreneurship education in enhancing students’ skills and determining their intention to start an entrepreneurial activity. Based on this premise positing entrepreneurship education as a moderator, following hypothesis has been proposed:

EE moderates the ESE and OR relationship.

Research design and methodology

This is a survey-based study for which data were collected cross-sectionally from undergraduate and postgraduate business and management background students. The data included responses of students from four prominent universities in India, Viz. University of Delhi, Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Milia Islamia Univerity and the University of Kashmir. The method employed for collecting the data was convenience sampling method. The purpose of employing convenience sampling method was due to its usage and feasibility in producing reliable and valid results in EI studies (Roy et al., 2017; Hassan et al., 2021; Bazan et al., 2019). An online survey was conducted in the month of June 2022, using Google forms: A total of 545 students belonging to these universities were contacted (346 undergraduate students and 199 postgraduate students). A response rate of 63.48% was achieved with 387 students responding and completing the survey from this group. Following the data cleaning procedure, 19 responses were eliminated because the respondents’ responses were insufficient, and 17 responses were eliminated because the data were unsuitable; this left a final sample of 351 respondents, 183 males and 168 females, with an average age of 20.31 years. The demographic profile of the sample is given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic profile of the sample (N=351).

Variable name	Category	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Age	18–20	182	51.8
	20–23	128	36.5
	24 and above	41	11.7
Gender	Male	183	52.1
Gender	Female	168	47.9
Educational level	Undergraduate	219	62.3
Educational level	Postgraduate	132	37.7
My father is an entrepreneur	Yes	127	36.1
My father is an entrepreneur	No	224	63.9
My mother is an entrepreneur	Yes	63	17.9
My mother is an entrepreneur	No	288	82.1

Samples and education programme

Students enrolled in business and management courses were preferred for this study. These students are taught a separate subject named entrepreneurship education during their undergraduate and postgraduate course. The entrepreneurship education subject is taught in these institutions through conventional classroom education method. The survey was conducted after they had completed the particular semester in which entrepreneurship education subject was taught. The different business and management courses taught in these universities are bachelors in commerce, bachelors in business administration, masters in commerce, and masters in business administration. The purpose of choosing students seeking entrepreneurship and business education was to examine the impact of EE they were seeking on their ability to recognise an entrepreneurial opportunity, as education is an important predecessor in attaining entrepreneurial ends (Küttim, et al., 2014; Adekiya and Ibrahim, 2016; Pedrini et al., 2017; Puni et al., 2018). The students were contacted and asked to rate as to how their exposure to entrepreneurship education helped them in gaining knowledge about entrepreneurial environment and necessary abilities to become an entrepreneur with questions, “knowledge about the entrepreneurial environment, and “the necessary abilities to be an entrepreneur”.

Questionnaire development

For the purpose of data collection, a questionnaire with validated scales was adapted and contextualised from previous published studies. The constructs of ESE, EE and EI, were measured by using the well-known and generally recognised EIQ (Entrepreneurial intention questionnaire) devised by Liñán and Chen (2009), on a seven-point Likert-type scale. The OR construct was measured using a scale adapted from (Ozgen and Baron, 2007). A total of 20 items were used in the questionnaire (see appendix 1), except the items ascertaining to the demographic profile of respondents (gender, age, course, the father being self-employed and the mother being self-employed).

Data Analysis

This study employed Smart PLS (4.0), statistical software, to analyse the data via partial least square equation modelling (PLS-SEM). The selection of this method of evaluation is based on the characteristics of the sample and the moderation analysis. Likewise, this strategy has become more prevalent in HRM, marketing, and related studies (Tian et al., 2020; Hair et al., 2012; Kura et al., 2015; Li et al., 2020; Min et al., 2020; Hair, et al., 2011). To estimate the impact of dependent variables, Hair et al. (2011) suggested the use of PLS-SEM. Correspondingly, Davari and Rezazadeh (2013), indicated that this approach is well suited for forecasting a set of simultaneous equations for the hypothesised model and establishing the link between the variables. The current study applies PLS-SEM, a validated reporting method, to undertake robust analysis in the domain of management sciences. SEM is a multidimensional data investigation technique of the second generation that evaluates theoretically developed linear and additive casual associations (StatSoft et al., 2013).

It enables researchers to investigate the connections between concepts. Since SEM examines the complex and unseen latent variables, it is believed as the most effective method for measuring direct and indirect paths. There are two types of analyses in structural equation modelling (SEM): inner model analyses and outer model analyses. These analyses probe the connections between independent and dependent variables, latent variables, and their respective indicators. By employing Smart PLS, PLS concentrates on variance analysis (Vinzi et al., 2010). Consequently, this methodology was chosen for this study.

Results

Measurement model

The conceptual model postulated in this study comprised of latent variables: entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurship education, opportunity recognition, and entrepreneurial intention. A measurement model was run on Smart PLS (4.0), in order to check reliability and validity of data. Cronbach alpha (CA) and composite reliability (CR) were used to determine reliability. Table 1 displays the findings of CA and CR for EE (0.948, 0.958), EI (0.857, 0.904), ESE (0.825, 0.869), and OR (0.873, 0.907) respectively. The permissible limit for CA and CR values suggested by Hair et al., 2011 is greater than 0.70, and the findings of the current study are within this limit, conforming no reliability issues.

In order to verify the convergent validity for each latent construct, the AVE was established by squaring the average factor loadings. Convergence is achieved, when the values of AVE are found to be above the threshold limit of 0.50 (Henseler et al., 2017). The AVE values of the latent constructs in this study (as shown in Table 1) are above the recommended value of 0.50, ensuring convergent validity for every latent construct.

To determine the discriminant validity, the authors have used Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. Recently, the HTMT ratio has surpassed Fornell and Larcker in favourability of examining the discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2016; Baloch et al., 2017). A latent construct is considered to be discriminant, if the HTMT values are below the threshold limit of 0.90 (Gold et al., 2001). The findings of the HTMT ratio for the current study (as shown in Table 2) are below the threshold limits of 0.90, ensuring divergent validity of each construct. To further assess the multicollinearity problem, we analysed the variance inflation factor (VIF). It was observed that VIF values were within the recommended limit, i.e., less than 10 given by Aiken and West (Aiken et al., 1991), indicating no issue of multicollinearity with the data.

Table 2.

Measurement model.

Construct	Item code	Loadings	CA	CR	AVE
Entrepreneurship education (EE)			0.948	0.958	0.793
	EE1	0.901
	EE2	0.889
	EE3	0.858
	EE4	0.931
	EE5	0.926
	EE6	0.835
Entrepreneurial intention (EI)			0.857	0.904	0.702
	EI1	0.752
	EI2	0.868
	EI3	0.871
	EI4	0.854
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE)			0.825	0.869	0.579
	ESE1	0.598
	ESE2	0.568
	ESE3	0.885
	ESE4	0.786
	ESE5	0.901
Opportunity recognition (OR)			0.873	0.907	0.663
	OR1	0.816
	OR2	0.792
	OR3	0.876
	OR4	0.888
	OR5	0.683

CA = Cronbach alpha; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance explained.

Hypotheses testing (direct effects)

The current study examined the direct impact of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention and opportunity recognition capability of students, denoted by hypotheses H1 and H2. Another direct relation between opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial intention was examined posited as H3. The results of hypotheses testing as shown in Table 3, show that entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences entrepreneurial intention and opportunity recognition capability of students with standard estimates of 0.504 (t = 12.608, p ≤ .01) and 0.601 (t = 17.939, and p ≤ .01) respectively, leading to the acceptance of hypotheses H1 and H2. The results of hypothesis H3, also showed a significant positive association opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial intention of students with a standard regression estimate of 0.338 (t = 7.254, p ≤ .01), conforming to the acceptance of hypothesis H3. The explanatory power of a model denoted by (R²) was 0.630, indicating that the independent variables in the model are able to explain 63% of total variance.

Table 3.

Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT).

	EE	EI	ESE
EE
EI	0.760
ESE	0.536	0.876
OR	0.637	0.816	0.802

Note: Entrepreneurship education (EE); Entrepreneurial intention (EI); Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE); Opportunity recognition (OR).

Indirect effects (mediation analysis)

The study also aimed at analysing the indirect effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention of students via opportunity recognition, posited as H4. Testing the mediating relationship bootstrapped at 5000 samples confirmed that opportunity recognition partially mediates the ESE and EI relationship with a standardised effect of 0.203 (t = 6.16, p ≤ .01) (as shown in Table 3), leading to the acceptance of hypothesis H4.

Moderation analysis

This study also explored the moderation effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition link posited as hypotheses H5. While testing the hypothesis H5, the results demonstrated a significant positive moderating effect with a standardised estimate of 0.112 (t = 3.593, p ≤ .01), leading to the acceptance of hypothesis H5 (see Table 3). The moderation relationship demonstrates that the connection between entrepreneurship education (ESE*EE) on ESE and OR is positive, and higher levels of EE will amplify the impact of ESE on OR. (Table 4).

Table 4.

Path coefficients.

Effects	Relationships	Beta	Mean	(STDEV)	t-value	p values
H1	ESE -> EI	0.504	0.504	0.040	12.608	.000***
H2	ESE -> OR	0.601	0.602	0.034	17.939	.000***
H3	OR -> EI	0.338	0.339	0.047	7.254	.000***
Indirect or mediating/moderating
H4	ESE -> OR -> EI	0.203	0.205	0.033	6.161	.000***
H5	ESE^*EE-> OR	0.112	0.112	0.031	3.593	.000***

Standardized effects are significant at 1%, i.e., ^***p < .01 level. Entrepreneurship education (EE); entrepreneurial intention (EI); entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE); opportunity recognition (OR).

Discussion

Entrepreneurs play a pivotal role in reviving economies because they generate new jobs for a wide range of people. So, it’s crucial to create programmes that encourage entrepreneurship. It was commonly held before the 1990s that entrepreneurs possessed innately unique personalities. The story has since shifted, however, with studies on entrepreneurship suggesting that the ability to be an entrepreneur is not innate but rather, can be taught. University support systems, exposure to role models, and entrepreneurship education and training are all factors that have been studied as potential causes of entrepreneurial behaviour (see, for example, BarNir et al., 2011; Roy et al., 2017; Brunel et al., 2017; Bazan et al., 2019; Anwar et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2021).

By providing students with opportunities to hone their skills and learn new ones, universities play a crucial role in fostering EI and preparing graduates for the market. According to Tomy and Pardede (2020), a university’s resources, including its education and ecosystem, can significantly increase an individual’s ability and motivation to carry out an entrepreneurial activity.

In this study, both direct and indirect effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention have been examined. Results of the existing research have depicted a positive association between the two, current study’s findings are in agreement with the results of the existing studies, indicating that self-efficacy boosts students’ confidence in their own entrepreneurial abilities, which helps them to develop entrepreneurial intention. In other words, having self-confidence in one’s ability to conduct and manage a business, thus, leads students along the path of entrepreneurship, even though self-efficacy is in synchronisation with an entrepreneurial mind-set since it enhances self-confidence in one’s entrepreneurial abilities.

Also the current study examined the direct effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the opportunity recognition capability of students. The study’s results are in conformity with the outcome of study conducted by Ozgen (2003). The results of this path infer that students having self-belief in their entrepreneurial capabilities have higher chances of finding a right opportunity regarding an entrepreneurial activity. The students who believe in their own entrepreneurial skills have more chances to take up entrepreneurship as a career. However, this study found that these chances are more certain when the students are able to spot the right entrepreneurial opportunity.

Moreover, OR, which refers to a person’s capacity to identify, explore, or build patterns and ideas, has been incorporated into some models (Ozgen and Baron, 2007; Hunter, 2013). The researchers have come to a variety of conclusions regarding the link between OR and EI. Although certain researchers believe that the OR should come before the process of EI (Mahmood et al., 2019; Puni et al., 2018), other researchers have proved that it should come after the process (Jarvis, 2016; Asante and Affum-Osei, 2019) despite the fact that there is very little published research on the association between OR and EI. The study also analysed the direct effects of the OR on EI, and the findings discovered that OR strongly influenced EI. Thus, suggests that a mere positive outlook toward entrepreneurship is not sufficient to form EI leading to an actual behaviour; rather, a more positive behavioural attitude toward initiating an entrepreneurial career would be stimulated by spotting a potential business opportunity. The present study conforms to the results of previous research by Puni et al., 2018; Mahmood et al., 2019.

Furthermore, the indirect effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on students’ entrepreneurial intention via the mediating effect of opportunity recognition was found significant. This infers that the ESE-EI relationship strengthens in the presence of OR. In other words, students having self-belief in their capability are more likely to have the capability to identify an entrepreneurial opportunity, which in-turn increases the chances of developing the intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity.

The authors also discussed the moderating effect of entrepreneurship education on the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. The results confirmed that increasing the level of entrepreneurship education by 11.2% increased the influence of self-efficacy on opportunity recognition. Entrepreneurship education not only directly increases student’s entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition capability, but it also supports the prevailing link between self-efficacy and opportunity recognition. When entrepreneurship education is properly and adequately imparted, self-efficacy is more likely to improve student’s opportunity recognition capability. This means that if an individual knows or has faith in his or her abilities to undertake an entrepreneurial activity, then education increases the chances of identifying the right entrepreneurial opportunity.

Implications

Theoretical implications

This study has some theoretical contributions to offer in entrepreneurship field. First, the findings of this study reveal that students’ who believe in their competence and ability are more likely to develop the intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity, as entrepreneurship helps in developing these competences and skills, therefore, debunking the myth that entrepreneurs are born rather than created. Secondly, the findings of this study revealed a positive association between student’s self-efficacy and their opportunity recognition capability, therefore, adding to this less explored path of literature. Thirdly, the findings showed that finding the student’s opportunity recognition capability mediates the ESE-EI relationship, therefore contributing to the literature of more inclusive intention based models. Finally, this study reveals that entrepreneurship education moderates the ESE-OR relationship, therefore, demystifying the critical role of entrepreneurship education in building the student’s self-belief and capability to identify entrepreneurial opportunity.

Practical implications

The current also has some practical implications to offer both to universities and policymakers. Firstly, the findings of this study revealed the importance of classroom entrepreneurship education in driving students towards entrepreneurship, by influencing their self-efficacy and opportunity recognising capability. Henceforth, universities where only business education is being offered can take note of it and include entrepreneurship education as a subject in their course. Secondly, policymakers can frame policies to include entrepreneurship education at the intermediate level also, in order to create an entrepreneurial mind-set in students even before joining the university level education, as entrepreneurship education can manoeuvre their behaviour towards entrepreneurship and help them in building self-confidence, competence and capability to recognise entrepreneurial opportunity at the earliest. Finally, in order to make stronger impact on students’ intentionality, in addition to classroom education, universities can include the projects of real life problem solving in their course syllabi and increase their interaction with entrepreneurs.

Conclusion

The current study aims at understanding the impact of students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy on their opportunity recognition capability after their exposure to classroom based entrepreneurship education, leading to the development of intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. There are five takeaways from this study. First, entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively influences student’s entrepreneurial intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Second, entrepreneurial self-efficacy influences student’s opportunity recognition capability. Third, opportunity recognition capability positively influences student’s intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Fourth, student’s opportunity recognition capability positively mediates the relationship between their entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention to undertake an entrepreneurial activity. Lastly, entrepreneurship education positively moderates the entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention relationship.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the current study’s contribution, it is not free from limitations that present chances for future research opportunities. The first drawback of the study is that it includes students from business and management backgrounds only, excluding out those with other backgrounds. Future researchers can consider this limitation and include students from other backgrounds, regardless of business and management students. The second limitation of the study is that human behaviour cannot be predicted accurately. Therefore, the students’ perceived entrepreneurial intention might change later, and they may opt for other careers. The third limitation of the study is that only two variables, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition, were considered to draw conclusions about entrepreneurial intention. Future researchers can rectify this limitation by considering other variables like social capital, exposure to role models, behavioural attitude, subjective social norms etc. Finally, current study employed a cross-sectional research design, indicating that the responses were gathered in a single instant. This methodology might not be capable of precisely replicating exact entrepreneurial intention because the stages of forecasting and outcome variables are prone to change throughout the study (McCann and Vroom, 2015). Therefore, a longitudinal study carried out by researchers would act as a solution to this limitation and offer a deeper understanding.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Aamir Hassan

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy Source: Linan and Chen, 2009

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement)

1. I can control the creation process of a new business

2. If I tried to start a business, I would have a high probability of success

3. Starting a business and keeping it functional would be easy for me

4. I know the necessary practical details to start a business

5. I am prepared to start a viable business

Opportunity recognition Source: Ozgen and Baron, 2007

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement)

1. I see many opportunities to start and grow a business

2. Finding potential venture opportunities is easy for me

3. In general, there are many opportunities for new product innovation

4. I have a special sense of new venture ideas

5. During my routine day-to-day activities, I see potential new venture ideas

Entrepreneurship education (EE) Source: Linan and Chen, 2009

To what extent do you think that entrepreneurship education course helped you in developing the following aspects? Indicate from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement)

1. Knowledge about the entrepreneurial environment

2. Greater recognition of the entrepreneur’s figure

3. The preference to be an entrepreneur

4. The necessary abilities to be an entrepreneur

5. The intention to be an entrepreneur

Entrepreneurial intention (EI) Source: Linan and Chen, 2009

Indicate your level of agreement with the following statements from 1 (total disagreement) to 7 (total agreement)

1. I am ready to make anything to be an entrepreneur

2. My professional goal is becoming an entrepreneur

3. I will make every effort to start and run my own firm

4. I am determined to create a firm in the future

5. I have very seriously thought of starting a firm

References

Adekiya

Ibrahim

(2016) Entrepreneurship intention among students. The antecedent role of culture and entrepreneurship training and development. International Journal of Management in Education 14(2): 116–132.

Aiken

West

Reno

. (1991). Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Al Mamun

Binti Che Nawi

Dewiendren

AAP

, et al. (2016) Examining the effects of entrepreneurial competencies on students’ entrepreneurial intention. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7(2): 119.

Anwar

Saleem

Islam

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial intention among female university students: examining the moderating role of entrepreneurial education. Journal for International Business and Entrepreneurship Development 12(4): 217–234.

Anwar

Thoudam

Saleem

(2022) Role of entrepreneurial education in shaping entrepreneurial intention among university students: testing the hypotheses using mediation and moderation approach. The Journal of Education for Business 97(1): 8–20.

Ardichvili

Cardozo

Ray

(2003) A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. Journal of Business Venturing 18(1): 105–123.

Asante

Affum-Osei

(2019) Entrepreneurship as a career choice: the impact of locus of control on aspiring entrepreneurs’ opportunity recognition. Journal of Business Research 98: 227–235.

Baloch

Meng

, et al. (2017) Dark triad, perceptions of organisational politics and counterproductive work behaviors: the moderating effect of political skills. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1972.

Bandura

(1989) Human agency in social cognitive theory. American Psychologist 44(9): 1175.

10.

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

11.

BarNir

Watson

Hutchins

(2011) Mediation and moderated mediation in the relationship among role models, self-efficacy, entrepreneurial career intention, and gender. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41(2): 270–297.

12.

Baron

(2006) Opportunity recognition as pattern recognition: how entrepreneurs ‘‘connect the dots’’ to identify new business opportunities. Academy of Management Perspectives 20(1): 104–119.

13.

Bazan

Shaikh

Frederick

, et al. (2019) Effect of memorial university’s environment & support system in shaping entrepreneurial intention of students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 22(1): 1–35.

14.

Bird

(1988) Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention. Academy of Management Review 13(3): 442–453.

15.

Boyd

Vozikis

(1994) The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18(4): 63–77.

16.

Brunel

Laviolette

Radu-Lefebvre

(2017) Role models and entrepreneurial intention: the moderating effects of experience, locus of control and self-esteem. Journal of Enterprising Culture 25(02): 149–177.

17.

Chen

Greene

Crick

(1998) Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing 13(4): 295–316.

18.

Chen

Gully

Eden

(2004) General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organisational Psychology and Behavior 25(3): 375–395.

19.

Daniel

(2016) Fostering an entrepreneurial mindset by using a design thinking approach in entrepreneurship education. Industry and Higher Education 30(3): 215–223.

20.

Davari

Rezazadeh

(2013) Structural equation modeling with PLS. Tehran: Jahad University 215(2): 224.

21.

De Koning

Muzyka

(1999) Conceptualising opportunity recognition as a socio-cognitive process. Stockholm: Centre for Advanced Studies in Leadership.

22.

DePillis

Reardon

(2007) The influence of personality traits and persuasive messages on entrepreneurial intention: A cross‐cultural comparison. Career Development International 12: 382–396.

23.

DeTienne

Chandler

(2004) Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test. The Academy of Management Learning and Education 3(3): 242–257.

24.

Dissanayake

DMNSW

(2013) The impact of perceived desirability and perceived feasibility on entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Sri Lanka: an extended model. The Kelaniya Journal of Management 2(1): 39–57.

25.

Engle

Dimitriadi

Gavidia

, et al. (2010) Entrepreneurial intent: a twelve-country evaluation of Ajzen’s model of planned behavior. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 16: 35–57.

26.

Fietze

Boyd

(2017) Entrepreneurial intention of Danish students: a correspondence analysis. International journal of entrepreneurial behavior & research 23: 656–672.

27.

Forbes

(2005) Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others? Journal of Business Venturing 20(5): 623–640.

28.

Fretschner

Weber

(2013) Measuring and understanding the effects of entrepreneurial awareness education. Journal of Small Business Management 51(3): 410–428.

29.

Gartner

Shaver

Gatewood

, et al. (1994) Finding the entrepreneur in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18(3): 5–9.

30.

Gold

Malhotra

Segars

., 2001. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18: 185–214.

31.

Hair

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2011) PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19(2): 139–152.

32.

Hair

Sarstedt

Ringle

, et al. (2012) An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40(3): 414–433.

33.

Hansen

Shrader

Monllor

(2011) Defragmenting definitions of entrepreneurial opportunity. Journal of Small Business Management 49(2): 283–304.

34.

Hassan

Saleem

Anwar

, et al. (2020) Entrepreneurial intention of Indian university students: the role of opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship education. Education + Training 62: 843–861.

35.

Hassan

Anwar

Saleem

, et al. (2021) Individual entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: the mediating role of entrepreneurial motivations. Industry and Higher Education 35(4): 403–418.

36.

Hassan

Anwar

Saleem

, et al. (2022) Nexus between entrepreneurship education, motivations, and intention among Indian university students: the role of psychological and contextual factors. Industry and Higher Education 36(5): 539–555.

37.

Heilmaier

Ling

(2021) SMEs and HEIs: observations from Brunei Darussalam and Germany. Industry and Higher Education 35(3): 244–251.

38.

Henseler

(2017) Partial least squares path modeling. Advanced Methods for Modeling Markets. Cham: Springer, pp. 361–381.

39.

Henseler

Hubona

Ray

(2016) Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. Industrial Management and Data Systems 116: 2–20.

40.

Hill

Birkinshaw

(2010) Idea sets: conceptualising and measuring a new unit of analysis in entrepreneurship research. Organisational research methods 13(1): 85–113.

41.

Hmieleski

Baron

(2008) When does entrepreneurial self-efficacy enhance versus reduce firm performance? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal 2(1): 57–72.

42.

Hunter

(2013) A typology of entrepreneurial opportunity. Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 8(2): 128.

43.

Iakovleva

Kolvereid

Stephan

(2011) Entrepreneurial intentions in developing and developed countries. Education + Training 53: 353–370.

44.

Isenberg

(2011) The entrepreneurship ecosystem strategy as a new paradigm for economic policy: principles for cultivating entrepreneurship. Presentation at the Institute of International and European Affairs 1(781): 1–13.

45.

Jarvis

(2016) Identification, intentions and entrepreneurial opportunities: an integrative process model. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 22: 182–198.

46.

Karimi

(2020) ‘The role of entrepreneurial passion in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intentions’. Applied Economics 52(No. 3): 331–344.pp.

47.

Karimi

Biemans

Lans

, et al. (2013) Understanding role models and gender influences on entrepreneurial intentions among college students. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences 93: 204–214.

48.

Karimi

Biemans

Lans

, et al. (2014) Effects of role models and gender on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. European Journal of Training and Development 38: 694–727.

49.

Krueger

(2009) Entrepreneurial Intentions Are Dead: Long Live Entrepreneurial Intentions. Berlin, NY: Springer, 51–72.

50.

Krueger

Jr Brazeal

(1994) Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 18(3): 91–104.

51.

Krueger

Carsrud

(1993) Entrepreneurial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 5(4): 315–330.

52.

Krueger

Jr Reilly

Carsrud

(2000) Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing 15(5–6): 411–432.

53.

Kumar

(2007) Explaining entrepreneurial success: a conceptual model. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal 13(1): 57.

54.

Kuo

Chu

Hsu

, et al. (2004) An investigation of effort–accuracy trade-off and the impact of self-efficacy on Web searching behaviors. Decision Support Systems 37(3): 331–342.

55.

Kura

Shamsudin

Chauhan

(2015) Does self-regulatory efficacy matter? Effects of punishment certainty and punishment severity on organisational deviance. Sage Open 5(2): 2158244015591822.

56.

Küttim

Kallaste

Venesaar

, et al. (2014) Entrepreneurship education at university level and students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 110: 658–668.

57.

Laviolette

Lefebvre

Brunel

(2012) The impact of story bound entrepreneurial role models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 18(6): 720–742.

58.

Qalati

Khan

MAS

, et al. (2020) Value co-creation and growth of social enterprises in developing countries: moderating role of environmental dynamics. Entrepreneurship Research Journal 12: 501–528.

59.

Liñán

Chen

(2009) Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 33(3): 593–617.

60.

Lopes

Laurett

Ferreira

, et al. (2022). Modeling the predictors of students’ entrepreneurial intentions: the case of a peripheral European region. Industry and Higher Education 37: 09504222221117055.

61.

Lorz

(2011) The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention. unpublished dissertation. Germany: The University of St. Gallen, School of Management, Economics, Law, Social Sciences and International Affairs.

62.

Lumpkin

Hills

Shrader

. (2001). Opportunity recognition: A CEAE white paper. Chicago, IL: The Coleman Foundation.

63.

Mahmood

TMAT

Al Mamun

Ahmad

, et al. (2019) Predicting entrepreneurial intentions and pre-start-up behaviour among Asnaf millennials. Sustainability 11(18): 4939.

64.

Manesh

S. M. Z. E.

Rialp-Criado

(2019) International ecopreneurs: the case of eco-entrepreneurial new ventures in the renewable energy industry. Journal of International Entrepreneurship 17(1): 103–126.

65.

Markman

Baron

(2003) Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more successful as entrepreneurs than others. Human Resource Management Review 13(2): 281–301.

66.

Martin

McNally

Kay

(2013) Examining the formation of human capital in entrepreneurship: a meta-analysis of entrepreneurship education outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing 28(2): 211–224.

67.

McCann

Vroom

(2015) Opportunity evaluation and changing beliefs during the nascent entrepreneurial process. International Small Business Journal 33(6): 612–637.

68.

Min

Iqbal

Khan

MAS

, et al. (2020) Impact of supervisory behavior on sustainable employee performance: mediation of conflict management strategies using PLS-SEM. PLoS One 15(9): e0236650.

69.

Molaei

Reza Zali

Hasan Mobaraki

, et al. (2014) The impact of entrepreneurial ideas and cognitive style on students entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies 6(2): 140–162.

70.

Mwasalwiba

(2010) Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training 52: 20–47.

71.

Nowiński

Haddoud

Lančarič

, et al. (2019) The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Studies in Higher Education 44(2): 361–379.

72.

Okudan

Rzasa

(2006) A project-based approach to entrepreneurial leadership education. Technovation 26(2): 195–210.

73.

Oosterbeek

Van Praag

Ijsselstein

(2010) The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review 54(3): 442–454.

74.

Ozgen

(2003) Entrepreneurial Opportunity Recognition: Information Flow, Social and Cognitive Perspectives. Troy, NY: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

75.

Ozgen

Baron

(2007) Social sources of information in opportunity recognition: effects of mentors, industry networks, and professional forums. Journal of Business Venturing 22(2): 174–192.

76.

Park

(2005) Opportunity recognition and product innovation in entrepreneurial hi-tech start-ups: a new perspective and supporting case study. Technovation 25(7): 739–752.

77.

Pedrini

Langella

Molteni

(2017) Do entrepreneurial education programs impact the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention? An analysis of an entrepreneurship MBA in Ghana. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 11: 373–392.

78.

Piperopoulos

Dimov

(2015) Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 53(4): 970–985.

79.

Puni

Anlesinya

Korsorku

PDA

(2018) Entrepreneurial education, self-efficacy and intentions in Sub-Saharan Africa. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies 9: 492–511.

80.

Roy

Akhtar

Das

(2017) Entrepreneurial intention among science & technology students in India: extending the theory of planned behavior. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal 13(4): 1013–1041.

81.

Saeed

Yousafzai

Yani-De-Soriano

, et al. (2015), The role of perceived university support in the formation of students’ entrepreneurial intention, Journal of Small Business Management 53(4): 1127–1145.

82.

Sahoo

Panda

(2019) Exploring entrepreneurial orientation and intentions among technical university students: role of contextual antecedents. Education + Training 61: 718–736.

83.

Santos

Roomi

Liñán

(2016) About gender differences and the social environment in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Small Business Management 54(1): 49–66.

84.

Shane

Nicolaou

(2015) Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start businesses: a study of their genetic predispositions. Journal of Business Venturing 30(3): 407–419.

85.

StatSoft

(2013) Electronic statistics textbook. Tulsa, OK: StatSoft, Vol. 34.

86.

Tian

Iqbal

Akhtar

, et al. (2020) The impact of transformational leadership on employee retention: mediation and moderation through organisational citizenship behavior and communication. Frontiers in Psychology 11: 314.

87.

Timmons

. (1989). The Entrepreneurial Mind. Andover, MA: Brick house publishing Co.

88.

Tomy

Pardede

(2020) An entrepreneurial intention model focussing on higher education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26: 1423–1447.

89.

Ubierna

Arranz

de Arroyabe , et al. (2014) Entrepreneurial intentions of university students: a study of design undergraduates in Spain. Industry and Higher Education 28(1): 51–60.

90.

Van Gelderen

Brand

Van Praag

, et al. (2008) Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behaviour. Career Development International 13(6): 538–559.

91.

Vinzi

Trinchera

Amato

(2010) From foundations to recent developments and open issues for model assessment and improvement. In: Esposito Vinzi

Chin

Henseler

, et al. (eds) Handbook of partial least squares: concepts, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer, 47–82.

92.

Von Graevenitz

Harhoff

Weber

(2010) The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 76(1): 90–112.

93.

Wang

Chang

Yao

, et al. (2016) The contribution of self-efficacy to the relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention. Higher Education 72(2): 209–224.

94.

Wasdani

Mathew

(2014) Potential for opportunity recognition along the stages of entrepreneurship. Journal of global entrepreneurship research 4(1): 1–24.

95.

Wen-Long

Liu

WGH

Chiang

(2014) A study of the relationship between entrepreneurship courses and opportunity identification: an empirical survey. Asia Pacific Management Review 19(1): 1.

96.

Wilson

Kickul

Marlino

(2007) Gender, entrepreneurial self–efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice 31(3): 387–406.

97.

Yitshaki

Kropp

(2016) Motivations and opportunity recognition of social entrepreneurs. Journal of Small Business Management 54(2): 546–565.