The effect of entrepreneurship education on nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial intentions: The mediating effect of individual motivations

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

This study examines the effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions and individual motivations and the mediation of individual motivations in the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.

METHODS:

We tested 374 questionnaire samples using quantitative research methods. We used PLS-SEM and mediation analyses to analyze the data.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS:

First, the findings show that entrepreneurship education positively affects individual motivations of entrepreneurial intentions, personal attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and need for achievement. Second, subjective norms and the need for achievement did not impact entrepreneurial intentions compared to personal attitudes and perceived behavior. Finally, we found that while personal attitudes and perceived behavioral control mediated the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, subjective norms and the need for achievement had no effect. The study contributes to the literature and provides policy and managerial implications for macro and micro factors affecting entrepreneurial intentions in transition economies.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship education theory of planned behavior need for achievement entrepreneurial intentions.

Liridon Kryeziu obtained his Ph.D. in Business Administration at Sakarya University-Turkey. He currently teaches at University for Business and Technology-UBT/ELSG College and works and Senior Researcher at Riinvest Institute. His research interests are: entrepreneurship, family firms, institutions, firm internationalization, social networks, SMEs, behavioral strategy, and strategic management. He has published several papers on these topics.

Mehmet Bağış received his Ph.D. from Sakarya University Business Institute in 2018. Since 2022 he has been an Associate Professor at Sakarya University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Department of International Trade and Finance. His professional interests include strategic management, entrepreneurship, resource-based view, dynamic capabilities, behavioral strategy, and competitive strategy.

Mehmet Nurullah Kurutkan graduated from Sakarya University, LabourEconomics and Industrial Relations, Sakarya, Turkey in 2000. He received his Master’s degree in Labour Economics and Industrial Relations from Sakarya University, Turkey in 2003, and his Ph.D. degree in Labour Economics and Industrial Relations Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey in 2010. He has authored 24 articles, nine books, and five book chapters in Turkish and English. He started his career in the hospital sector as an x-ray technician and later worked as a quality management director before becoming a faculty member in the business school at Duzce University. He worked as the project leader of a national project in TUBITAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey). He is currently a full-time academic member of Duzce University, Faculty of Healthcare Management (2011–present). His professional interests mainly include risk management, health economics, professionalism, patient safety, and lean healthcare.

Artan Haziri holds a Ph.D in Macroeconomics obtained at the European University of Tirana-Albania. He currently teaches at University for Business and Technology. His research interests are economic development with a special emphasis on economic crisis, accounting and finances, private sector development, and SMEs.

Besnik A. Krasniqi, a Fulbright Postdoctoral Scholar, holds an MA and Ph.D. in Economics from Staffordshire University (UK). He teaches Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Innovation Management and Research Methods at the University of Prishtina in graduate and postgraduate studies. His professional career spans teaching and research in entrepreneurship at Maastricht School of Management (Netherland), Indiana University (US) and University of Michigan (US), Staffordshire University (UK), State University of Tetovo (Macedonia), Riinvest Institute for Development Research (Kosovo). He has authored several books, numerous research reports, and consultancy assignments. His research work in the area of entrepreneurship, firm growth, institutions, SME finance, informal economy, transition and emerging economies have appeared in international journals such as Small Bus Econ, Int Entrep Manag J., and Econ Sys. Mr. Krasniqi has worked in several regional projects, mainly in the area of economic zones, investment, and trade in Western Balkan countries. He has been involved in leading several development strategies at national and regional level.

Linda Ukimeraj Harris obtained her Ph.D. from Ljubljana University, Slovenia. She is the Head of Quality Assurance Office in Heimerer College. In addition, she has worked for many years as Education Consultant for the Ministry of Education, Science, Technology and Innovation in Kosovo. Her research interests concern Education Management, Quality Assurance and Female Entrepreneurship.

1 Introduction

The number of universities that provide Entrepreneurship Education (EE) has been increasing in the last few years in the world [1 –5] and has become a global phenomenon [6]. European governments have acknowledged the importance of entrepreneurship education for youth to improve working conditions, contribute to socio-economic conditions, and catalyze a country’s development [7]. This can be carried out to increase students’ skills and knowledge and encourage them to become entrepreneurs [1, 2]. However, studies show that the impact of education-based entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intentions depends on the country [2 , 8–10]. The reason is that the impact of EE on intentions is related to several factors, such as curriculum design, country, field of study, and the challenges that EE encounters when assisting start-ups and when managers tackle real-life problems [5]. Furthermore, EE has been negatively influenced by Covid-19, as it moved to online instructions, which has required additional resources to provide more productive entrepreneurship education [11] and introduce new practices to react to the change and use of unique teaching methods [12]. Therefore the latest technologies required to reach the expected outcomes of EE are of crucial importance [13].

Entrepreneurship education plays a vital role in strategies that stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit, provide knowledge about business and economics among youth and increase the country’s well-being in economic growth and poverty reduction [14]. Likewise, the COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 situations have created momentum and urgency in Kosovo, shifting the focus on skill development, lowering the skill mismatch gap, and matching the skills according to private sector demands [15]. The Entrepreneurship Program’s design must align with the current post-pandemic situation for the outcomes to lead to a more sustainable economy. Entrepreneurship education is a policy challenge for Kosovo institutions since the existing programs, which are in an emergent phase, do not provide the required skills and knowledge and are inefficient [16, 17]. It is noteworthy that the government of Kosovo has adopted several strategies and established several mechanisms with relevant ministries and other stakeholders to encourage entrepreneurship learning [16 –18].

There is a growing scholarly interest in the impact of EE on Entrepreneurial Intentions (EI) and the effects of individual motives on EI. Studies show that EE positively influences EI [10 , 19–21]. Likewise, studies show that EE positively influences individual motives [6 , 23] as the latter positively influences EI [7, 24] and plays a mediating role in the impact of EE on EI [14, 25]. However, due to the distinct characteristics of education systems and country institutional settings, studies show that the impact of education entrepreneurship on entrepreneurial intentions depends on the country [2 , 26]. Therefore, scholars call for the replication of studies on the impact of EE on EI in different contexts [27] as well as the combination of the effects of EE and individual motives on EI [6, 10]. Furthermore, examining the impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial intentions in the post-Covid-19 context, including individual motives, will provide implications for policymakers and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) on the extent these programs create an impact and are effective.

In this study, we examined the effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions (EI) and individual motives and the mediation of individual motives in the EE-EI relationship based on data from a country (Kosovo) in a transition economy. First, we used the university entrepreneurship curriculum (UEC), university teaching methods (UTM), and the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship (RUPE) as entrepreneurship education variables for our research [28]. Second, we considered personal attitudes (PA), subjective norm (SN), perceived behavioral control (PBC) [29], and need for achievement (NFA) [30] variables as individual motives. In this context, our research presents findings at multiple analysis levels with the achievements of combining entrepreneurship education (macro level), theory of planned behavior (TPB), and the need for achievement approaches (NFA) (micro level).

This study uses a sample of nascent entrepreneurs and students in Kosovo. Before COVID-19 and after COVID, weak institutional settings in Kosovo have created an uncertain business environment due to a lack of proper institutional reforms [31 –34]. The high unemployment rate has increased the policy urgency to design EE programs to encourage youth to become entrepreneurs. Therefore, we suggest that understanding the relationship between entrepreneurship education, individual motivations, and entrepreneurial intentions in the post-Covid-19 era will offer implications for policymakers and the literature. The first contribution of this study is to elucidate the impact of entrepreneurial education on EI based on evidence from transition economies and the mediation of individual motivations in this relationship. In this context, we consider previous studies’ conceptual and empirical limitations. The second contribution lies in the joint investigation of the combined impact of a country’s entrepreneurship education (as a regulatory institution) and its individual attitudes, perceptions, and psychological characteristics (as a social psychological construct) on entrepreneurial intentions [10 , 35]. Finally, we contribute to the literature on nascent entrepreneurs by using multiple levels of analysis (macro-micro) in entrepreneurship research, with the achievements of combining entrepreneurship education, planned behavior, and the need for achievement theories. The structure of this paper falls into four parts. The following section presents the literature review and builds hypothesis. The third section presents the method and findings, and the last section discusses the results, implications, limitations, and future suggestions.

2 Literature review and hypothesis development

In this part of the study, we first reviewed the literature on the effect of EE on EI. Secondly, we established the relationship between EE and individual motives. Thirdly, we presented the impact of individual motives on EI. Lastly, we discussed the mediating relationship of individual motives in the EE-EI relationship and set up hypotheses for all parts.

2.1 Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intensions

HEI has been developing entrepreneurship education by supporting start-ups, integrating entrepreneurship curricula into courses, and providing more advanced teaching and research concerning entrepreneurship [1]. Entrepreneurship programs provided by HEI can be grouped into two categories: academic degree programs offered to first-year students who intend to become entrepreneurs and training programs dedicated to active entrepreneurs aiming to increase their effectiveness [4]. Entrepreneurship education includes heterogeneous skills and characteristics, such as thinking creatively, working in groups, managing risk, and dealing with uncertain situations [2]. EE is important as it focuses on building skills for students to be more proactive in the market regarding employment and self-employment and have promising future career prospects [36]. Thereby, the efforts of HEI have been towards providing entrepreneurship curricula to increase skills and competencies [5, 6]. Developing and providing an innovative approach to teaching entrepreneurship, aiming to improve the skills and knowledge that can then be transferred to the private sector [3]. Scholars argue that despite the importance of focusing on entrepreneurship skills in other disciplines, EE needs to focus on the current challenging practices and customs of thinking [36]. Therefore, EE and EI have implications for scholars, educators, and entrepreneurs. Scholarly implications can be discovered by looking for models emphasizing creativity and opportunity identification [37]. For educators, implications are related to the well-defined pedagogy on EE, and the impact for entrepreneurs is associated with the potential for individuals to learn and increase skill sets on opportunity identification [36].

There is a growing body of literature on the impact of EE on nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial intentions. Studies maintain that entrepreneurship education positively influences entrepreneurial intentions [10 , 35]. Besides the impact that EE has on nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial intentions, it also plays a vital role in promoting entrepreneurship [10], predicting entrepreneurial behavior [19], and entrepreneurial performance [20], and there is also a positive relationship between positive perceptions of EE and innovation [38].

The impact of EE on EI as a career choice depends on the combination of student career orientation, course content, and the benefits that are becoming an entrepreneur brings to the students. The study examines the impact of EE on student career choice and how becoming self-employed depends on the paid-employment intentions of students, and how those intentions can neutralize the effects of EE on self-employment [39]. This study suggests that individual motives mediate the impact of EE on EI in cases when students have two career choices: self-employment and paid employment. Similarly, [14] study shows that student entrepreneurial intentions sometimes increase when they choose a future career that is not in public administration. At the same time, intentions decrease as they progress during their studies and are closer to business reality. In contrast to these studies, the analysis of [21] shows that the impact of EE on students’ awareness and intentions to become entrepreneurs depends on the extent to which the course is practical-oriented and includes entrepreneurial learning and competencies that encourage students to start up businesses. In addition, a study found a positive relationship between EE, entrepreneurial competencies, and intentions, suggesting that students with higher competencies are apt to achieve higher performance [26].

Scholars maintain that pedagogy, course content, and EE are essential predictors of entrepreneurial action [22]. However, scholars disagree on what should be taught in EE programs or how to teach students [21]. Despite these contradictions, Entrepreneurship Education Programs (EEP) positively influence EI’s precursors, such as students’ psychological characteristics, skills, and knowledge [27]. Students who have not taken the entrepreneurship course have less entrepreneurial intentions than those who have taken EE [40]. Another study found that GE students reported high-intensity intent; but GE did not provide equal benefits for all students [95]. Based on the results of these studies, we propose the following hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Entrepreneurship education positively effects entrepreneurial intentions.

2.2 Entrepreneurship education and individual motivations

Our study examines individual motives relying on the TPB and the NFA. TPB has its roots in the theory of reasoned action in social psychology [42, 43] and argues that individuals perform tasks to reach certain behaviors. These intentions are the precursors of motivation and behavior, indicating how much effort individuals put into performing behaviors [29, 44]. According to TPB, PA, SN, and PBC are three factors that affect intention. PA refers to an individual’s attitude toward a specific behavior. SN is related to the pressure individuals perceive while performing a behavior derived from social factors. PBC refers to an individual’s confidence and self-control while performing a behavior. Scholars argue that the TPB is an essential theory through which implications for policymakers can be provided while understanding entrepreneurial intention and antecedents [24 , 46]. NFA originates in need theory [30], which states that individuals gain motivation and psychological strength concerning actions and behaviors to meet their needs. As a result, the need for achievement is an essential source for individuals to be motivated to perform specific actions or behaviors. Scholars maintain that individuals with a high need for achievement are more determined to complete tasks [24].

Entrepreneurship education affects individual motivations by increasing students’ skills and competencies. It aims to provide real-life experiences and build their capacity to build up their confidence to set up start-ups [22]. EE is important for several reasons, such as promoting entrepreneurial behavior, increasing self-confidence, and reducing risk by acquiring knowledge and skills in the venture creation process [6]. Academics recognize the importance of EE and its impact on individual motivations [6 , 47]. Studies have concluded that EE negatively affects self-efficacy [9]. Some studies have concluded that there is no relationship between personal experiences, entrepreneurship education, and entrepreneurial intentions [82]. However, some studies have found that entrepreneurship education positively affects individual motivations, such as perceived attitudes and social control [83]. These findings show that research on the effect of entrepreneurship education on personal attitudes has reached inconsistent results. Despite these contradictory results, we assume that entrepreneurship education will positively affect students’ personal attitudes. In this context, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2a: Entrepreneurship education positively effects personal attitudes.

The results of a study [84] that tested the moderator effect of entrepreneurship education on the impact of subjective norms on entrepreneurial intentions concluded that entrepreneurship education did not have a moderator effect. A different study examining entrepreneurship education’s impact on subjective norms [48] found that the subjective norms and self-employment intentions of the students in the “program” group increased. At the same time, it was found that EE did not affect SN in the students in the control group. Recent studies have also found that entrepreneurship education has a statistically significant and positive effect on subjective norms [96]. Research on this subject has produced fragmented results. However, we expect entrepreneurship education to influence students’ behavior positively. In this context, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2b: Entrepreneurship education positively effects subjective norms.

Entrepreneurship education can enable individuals to change their beliefs about the availability of resources and increase their perceived behavioral control [85, 86]. Furthermore, entrepreneurship education can improve the skills of entrepreneurs and thus increase perceived feasibility and consultative management [87]. Studies show that entrepreneurship education positively affects individuals’ perceived behavioral control [23, 85]. In this context, in this study, we accept that entrepreneurship education will positively impact students’ perceived behavioral control. Based on the results of these studies, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2c: Entrepreneurship education positively effects perceived behavioural controls.

Entrepreneurship education helps entrepreneurs understand the business and gain the skills and abilities to become successful [88]. In addition, the roles of cultural elements such as norms and values and education in improving the achievement needs of individuals are undeniable [89]. For this reason, it is precious to determine the effect of entrepreneurship education on an individual’s need for success. Studies have concluded that entrepreneurship education positively affects individuals’ need for achievement [88, 89]. In the context of these studies, we propose the following hypothesis.

H2d: Entrepreneurship education positively effects need for achievement.

2.3 Individual motivations and entrepreneurial intensions

Although the literature is inconsistent in terms of which individual factors influence entrepreneurial intentions, scholars acknowledge the impact of individual motives (e.g., PA, SN, and PBC, NFA) [24 , 49–53]. Entrepreneurship education provides skills and competencies such as problem-solving, creativity, interpersonal skills, and cognitive skills to develop entrepreneurial capabilities and instill an entrepreneurial mindset in students toward entrepreneurial activity [5]. However, gaining such competencies depends on the individual motives of students to choose entrepreneurship as a career. Research into the effect of individual motivations on entrepreneurial intentions has generally yielded positive results. However, there are also negative research results. First, some studies have confirmed the positive effect of PA on EI [90, 91]. Second, research on subjective norms has produced inconsistent results. A group of studies found that SN positively affects EI [92, 93]. Another group of studies provided no evidence of this effect [94]. Third, studies have found that PBC has a statistically significant and positive impact on EI [24 , 94]. Finally, research on NFA has revealed that individuals’ need for success is one of the main motivations and a significant driving force for starting a business [24]. Studies confirm that NFA has a statistically significant effect on EI [24, 52]. When studies investigating the impact between PA, SN, PBC, and NFA variables and EI are evaluated, it is seen that studies generally report positive results. Based on the results of these studies, we propose the following hypotheses.

H3a: Personal attitudes positively effects entrepreneurial intentions.

H3b: Subjective norms positively effects entrepreneurial intentions.

H3c: Perceived behavioural positively controls effects entrepreneurial intentions.

H3d: Need for achievement positively effects entrepreneurial intentions.

2.4 Mediating effect of individual motivations on the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions

Several studies have shown that individual motives mediate the impact of EE on EI. Study shows that individual motives such as attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behaviour control mediate the students’ perceived relationship between entrepreneurial motivation and intentions [55]. Another study shows that individual motives’ impact depends on the education program, where subjective norms influence more MBA students, while EEP students’ intentions are driven by PCB [41]. Thereby, a student’s self-efficacy is an excellent explanatory variable and plays a mediating role in entrepreneurial innovation learning [20]. The study demonstrates that the source of the willingness of disadvantaged students to take an entrepreneurship course is family background, self-efficacy, and need for achievement [19]. Therefore, the success of entrepreneurship education that may lead to entrepreneurial intentions is related to the relationship between perceived desirability and personal feasibility that students may have to start a business or employment [14]. Study findings show that individual motives’ impact on entrepreneurial intentions depends on a group of students [25]. These findings reveal that individual motives such as personal achievement, social welfare, and social relationship are related to assimilated students. At the same time, individual motives such as personal achievement and cognitive interests foster entrepreneurial intentions during entrepreneurship education for accommodated students. Studies have determined that the variables of perception desirability, perceived feasibility, perceived self-efficacy [97], personal attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control [98], and need for achievement [99] mediate. Based on the results of these studies, we propose the following hypotheses. We present the statistical modeling of all the variables and hypotheses used in the study in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Research model.

H4a: Personal attitudes mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.

H4b: Subjective norms mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.

H4c: Perceived behavioural controls mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.

H4d: Need for achievement mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.

3 Method

In this part of the study, we first gave sample selection and data collection stages. Secondly, we presented the independent and dependent variables of the study. Then, in the following three titles, we explained the research method, measurement model, and common method bias (CMB) in order. Finally, in the last two titles, we gave the results of hypothesis tests and mediation analyses by evaluating the measurement model of the research.

3.1 Sample and data collection

The sample of the study consists of two groups. The first group comprises nascent entrepreneurs who have previously owned a business. This group constitutes 34.22% of the sample. The second group consists of individuals who are in the process of starting a business, have prepared entrepreneurial projects in the past, participated in entrepreneurship ecosystem crowdfunding meetings, participated in a business project competition, prepared a business plan, and are willing to dedicate effort and resources to start a business [56 –58]. The second group consists of 65.78% of the sample. In addition, emerging entrepreneurs include online freelancers with economics, management, and business administration backgrounds. Our study’s sample aligns with previously published research investigating individuals’ entrepreneurial behavior and intentions [48, 59].

The questionnaire was translated from English to Albanian and vice versa, using the translation-back translation method. Afterward translating the questionnaire, we checked the validity of the statements with the support of two Albanian speaker academicians. After this stage, we wrote a cover letter asking participants to respond independently. To avoid socially desirable answers, we asked the respondents to give the first answer that came to mind and reminded them that there is no right or wrong answer. Before applying our questionnaire, we reached 60 people with the pilot study and finalized the questionnaire with the feedback we received. The average completion time of the questionnaire is between 7–8 minutes, and 402 people filled out the questionnaire. We first made a preliminary examination of the collected questionnaires. After checking the completed questionnaires, we examined them closely and excluded 28 questionnaires that were not completed correctly. The final sample in this study was 374. Table 1 shows the demographic statistics of the participants.

Table 1
Descriptive statistics (N = 374)

Demographic Information (%)

Gender Female 70,86

Male 29,14

Residential Area Rural 40,91

Urban 59,09

Income 0–500 22,73

501–1000 36,9

1001–2000 24,06

2001–4000 11,76

4000 and up 4,55

Education Bachelor 79,68

Master 20,32

Graduation Year Later (2024 or more) 55,35

Next year (2023) 32,62

This year (2022) 12,03

Do you personally know an entrepreneur No 25,94

Yes 73,8

Have you ever owned or currently have a business? No 65,78

Yes 34,22

Demographic Information	(%)
Gender	Female	70,86
	Male	29,14
Residential Area	Rural	40,91
	Urban	59,09
Income	0–500	22,73
	501–1000	36,9
	1001–2000	24,06
	2001–4000	11,76
	4000 and up	4,55
Education	Bachelor	79,68
	Master	20,32
Graduation Year	Later (2024 or more)	55,35
	Next year (2023)	32,62
	This year (2022)	12,03
Do you personally know an entrepreneur	No	25,94
	Yes	73,8
Have you ever owned or currently have a business?	No	65,78
	Yes	34,22

70.86% of the participants were women, and 29.14% were men. The rate of people living in rural areas was 40.91%, while the rate of people living in urban areas was 59.09%. When evaluated in terms of income groups, 36.9% of the participants were found to have an income between 501–1000 Euros. The rate of people with undergraduate education was 79.68%, while the rate of participants at the master’s level was 20.32%. A great majority of the participants (73.8%) stated that they know an entrepreneur. The rate of those who own a business was 34.22%.

3.2 Measures

Independent variables: Our study focused on five independent variables: PA, SN, PBC, NFA, and EE. First, we used the entrepreneurial intentions scale [60]. The EI scale consists of four dimensions: PA (five items), SN (three items), PBC (six items), and EI (six items), for a total of 20 items. We used this scale’s PA, SN, and PBC dimensions as independent variables in the study. Second, we used the NFA (six items) scale [61]. This scale tests the entrepreneurial career intentions of entrepreneurs new to higher education. Finally, we employed the EE scale to measure Entrepreneurship Education [56]. This scale consists of three sub-dimensions. The first dimension includes the UEC and consists of 8 items. The second dimension includes UTM and consists of 9 items. The third dimension is the RUPE, which covers nine items. To demonstrate the ability to represent these three dimensions, we conducted a second-level factor analysis and gathered the dimensions under the entrepreneurship education dimension. In this study, we arranged the expressions in a 7-point Likert style. The statements are based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.”

Dependent variable: Our dependent variable, entrepreneurial intent (EI), is based on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree. We used the entrepreneurial intentions scale as the dependent variable [60]. This scale consists of six statements. The EI has a high Cronbach Alpha and a high composite confidence level. We present the statistical results of validity and reliability for all dimensions in Table 2.

Table 2
Construct reliability and validity

Variables Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE

EI 0.945 0.946 0.742

EE 0.955 0.957 0.506

NFA 0.894 0.894 0.579

PA 0.885 0.895 0.610

PBC 0.913 0.917 0.637

RUPE 0.922 0.923 0.628

SN 0.808 0.817 0.573

UEC 0.938 0.940 0.659

UTM 0.953 0.954 0.770

Variables	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	AVE
EI	0.945	0.946	0.742
EE	0.955	0.957	0.506
NFA	0.894	0.894	0.579
PA	0.885	0.895	0.610
PBC	0.913	0.917	0.637
RUPE	0.922	0.923	0.628
SN	0.808	0.817	0.573
UEC	0.938	0.940	0.659
UTM	0.953	0.954	0.770

3.3 Empirical method

We used SmartPLS 4 [63] to evaluate our model’s structure. Recent studies [62, 64] and research demonstrated that PLS is a well-established and reliable state-of-the-art method [65]. Recently, many studies have been working on various aspects of entrepreneurship and using SmartPLS and its software [66, 67]. The path weighting scheme is employed. We employed nonparametric bootstrapping with 2000 replications to get the standard errors for our structural model testing. The repeated indicator approach specifies the type 1 reflective-reflective higher-order construct for EE [62].

3.4 Measurement model

PLS-SEM was used to analyze the measurement model of this research. We looked at Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) values for construct reliability and validity. For discriminant validity, Fornell Larcker, Cross Loading, and Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratios are usually checked [68] state that constructs scores greater than 0.7 should be considered reliable.

Table 2 shows that all nine dimensions have Cronbach’s alpha scores above 0.8, and all constructs meet the reliability criteria. AVE is a measure to determine convergent validity [63], and the AVE value needs to be at least 0.5 [69]. All variables in this study have AVE values above 0.5, indicating sufficient convergent validity. The HTMT was also calculated to assess discriminant validity. The calculated confidence interval of HTMT statistics was lower than the threshold value of 0.9 for all factorial sub-dimensions [71, 72]. The results, therefore, indicate sufficient convergent and discriminant validity for each considered sub-dimension. Tables 3 4 provide the Fornell-Larcker Criteria and the HTMT rates.

Table 3
Fornell-larcker criteria

Variables EI NFA PA PBC RUPE SN UEC UTM

EI 0.861

NFA 0.455 0.761

PA 0.643 0.493 0.781

PBC 0.594 0.402 0.499 0.798

RUPE 0.403 0.298 0.285 0.317 0.792

SN 0.247 0.459 0.328 0.245 0.167 0.757

UEC 0.587 0.435 0.506 0.463 0.600 0.261 0.812

UTM 0.398 0.438 0.385 0.262 0.633 0.279 0.668 0.878

Variables	EI	NFA	PA	PBC	RUPE	SN	UEC	UTM
EI	0.861
NFA	0.455	0.761
PA	0.643	0.493	0.781
PBC	0.594	0.402	0.499	0.798
RUPE	0.403	0.298	0.285	0.317	0.792
SN	0.247	0.459	0.328	0.245	0.167	0.757
UEC	0.587	0.435	0.506	0.463	0.600	0.261	0.812
UTM	0.398	0.438	0.385	0.262	0.633	0.279	0.668	0.878

Table 4

HTMT rate

Variables	EI	NFA	PA	PBC	RUPE	SN	UEC	UTM
EI
NFA	0.452
PA	0.639	0.499
PBC	0.592	0.394	0.498
RUPE	0.402	0.296	0.281	0.318
SN	0.241	0.448	0.330	0.238	0.163
UEC	0.587	0.435	0.508	0.463	0.600	0.261
UTM	0.397	0.438	0.384	0.261	0.632	0.274	0.668

3.5 Common method bias

Data are produced through survey expressions, and surveys may be widely biased in their methodology. This investigation found CMB using the single factor Harman’s test [73]. An analysis using SPSS version 25 shows that the first component accounts for 18.32 % of the total variation. When a ratio falls below 40%, most of the variance cannot be explained by any one cause. Consequently, we argue that CMB significantly does not impact this study [74].

3.6 Structural model evaluation

After confirming the measurement model’s reliability and validity, the structural model’s evaluation is discussed. We analyzed the structural model using SmartPLS 4 [63]. The R2s of the statistically significant pathways are 0.563 for EI, 0.220 for PA, 0.17 for PBC, 0.751 for RUPE, 0.867 for UEC, and 0.813 for UTM, respectively. The standardized root means square (SRMR) is an essential indicator for measuring the fit criteria of the SmartPLS model. The SRMR of the proposed model is 0.095 (<0.1), indicating that the model has an acceptable degree of fit [68]. The t-values were given in the outer model, and the p-value was presented with the path coefficient in the inner model.

Figure 2 shows that only two paths are not statistically significant. The model indicates that SN and NFA do not statistically affect EI. At the same time, other all other pathways were statistically significant (p < 0.05). The bootstrapping method was applied in the structural model established to test the hypothesis. Firstly, the bootstrap repetition size was determined as 5000 [75]. Secondly, VIF values were checked to detect possible linearity problems in the model [70] stated that the structural model’s VIF values of exogenous variables should be less than 5. Since the VIF values in the constructed structural model were less than 5, it was seen that there was no problem in terms of linearity in the model. Then, the coefficient values were measured according to the proposed t-statistics [68]. Commonly used critical values for bidirectional tests are 1.96 (p = 5%) and 2.57 (p = 1%). The model is also within the recommended limit for t-statistics values. PLS does not produce goodness-fit indices like the covariance-based structural equation [76] recommend using the SRMR value as the appropriate model fit criterion for PLS models. The SRMR for data in the multi-group analysis is 0.095. The most common method used to explain structural models is the coefficient of determination (R2). R2 is the square of the correlation between actual and predicted values [77]. The study also checked the coefficients Q2 for cross-validated redundancy and f2 for effect size. The results of the hypothesis tests evaluated in this context are shown in Table 5.

Fig. 2

Structural model.

Table 5

Hypothesis tests

Variables	Original Sample (O)	Sample Mean (M)	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (\|O/STDEV\|)	P values	2.5%	97.5%
EE ->EI	0.237	0.238	0.051	4.647	0.000	0.138	0.338
EE ->PA	0.469	0.472	0.052	9.014	0.000	0.369	0.572
EE ->SN	0.277	0.279	0.057	4.899	0.000	0.164	0.387
EE ->PBC	0.414	0.416	0.049	8.423	0.000	0.313	0.509
EE ->NFA	0.460	0.461	0.048	9.564	0.000	0.364	0.549
PA ->EI	0.368	0.367	0.059	6.208	0.000	0.249	0.479
SN ->EI	–0.043	–0.041	0.052	0.819	0.413	–0.147	0.062
PBC ->EI	0.298	0.296	0.052	5.755	0.000	0.196	0.397
NFA ->EI	0.063	0.064	0.057	1.108	0.268	–0.046	0.178

As shown in Table 5, the effects of NFA and SN on EI were not statistically significant. On the other hand, in the structural model graph, the significance of factor loadings is shown over t-values. T values higher than 1.96 in absolute value are significant at a 95% significance level. In the arrows drawn for the relations between the dimensions, the value shown outside the parenthesis is the beta coefficient. The value shown in parentheses is the p-value. The significance level for the P value is valued at less than 0.05. Accordingly, EE significantly affects PA, SN, PBC, NFA, and EI statistically. The path of all beta coefficients is positive values. PA statistically affects EI, and PBC affects EI statistically. The path with the most power to explain the variance is where EE affects PA. Table 5 shows that the statistically significant β values are the lowest at 0.237 and the highest at 0.469. These values are above the acceptable cut-off point of 0.1 [78].

3.7 Mediating analysis

To evaluate the mediating effect of the variables, this study followed the procedures of [68, 79]. According to the mediation analysis results for four mediating variables, it is shown that two individual motives mediating variables had no impact compared to other variables. NFA’s mediating role on entrepreneurship education’s entrepreneurial intention was not statistically significant (β= 0.029, [–0.022, 0.08]). Similarly, the mediating role of SN on entrepreneurial intention of entrepreneurship education is not statistically significant (β= –0.012, [–0.044, 0.018]). Findings also show PA is statistically significant and has a mediating effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention (β= –0.172, [0.110, 0.246]). Likewise, PBC is statistically significant and has a mediating effect on the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention (β= –0.123, [0.075, 0.182]). There is partial mediation in both mediations. Finally, findings based on p values and confidence intervals showed that EE had a mediating effect on both PA and PBC in its effect on EI. The results of the mediation analyses are shown in Table 6.

Table 6
Spesific idirect efects

Variables Original sample (O) Sample mean (M) Standard deviation (STDEV) T statistics (|O/STDEV|) P values 2.5 % 97.5 %

EE ->PA ->EI 0.172 0.173 0.034 4.998 0.000 0.110 0.246

EE ->NFA ->EI 0.029 0.029 0.026 1.117 0.264 –0.022 0.080

EE ->PBC ->EI 0.123 0.124 0.027 4.556 0.000 0.075 0.182

EE ->SN ->EI –0.012 –0.011 0.015 0.775 0.438 –0.044 0.018

Variables	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (\|O/STDEV\|)	P values	2.5 %	97.5 %
EE ->PA ->EI	0.172	0.173	0.034	4.998	0.000	0.110	0.246
EE ->NFA ->EI	0.029	0.029	0.026	1.117	0.264	–0.022	0.080
EE ->PBC ->EI	0.123	0.124	0.027	4.556	0.000	0.075	0.182
EE ->SN ->EI	–0.012	–0.011	0.015	0.775	0.438	–0.044	0.018

4 Implications and conclusion

Considering the post-COVID situation and its impact on socio-economic well-being, encouraging entrepreneurial activities across the country is crucial to lowering the unemployment rate and improving socio-economic well-being and skill development. Therefore, the purpose of this study was threefold: firstly, to examine the impact of entrepreneurship education on nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial intentions; secondly, to explore the impact of entrepreneurship education on individual motives and the effect of the latter on entrepreneurial intentions; and thirdly, to examine the mediating role of individual motives on the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions. The contributions of this study and implications for policymakers and higher education institutions are discussed below.

4.1 Theoretical implications

Our study’s findings show that EE positively influences entrepreneurial intentions. First, the results confirm our first hypothesis and show that entrepreneurship education positively influences entrepreneurial intentions. These findings confirm the discussions of scholars that entrepreneurial education is a vital tool to increase individuals’ knowledge, experience, and skills, thereby increasing their intentions to become entrepreneurs [10 , 54]. Furthermore, EE is crucial for nascent entrepreneurs as they reflect on their entrepreneurial behavior and increase their self-confidence by becoming self-employed [6]. These findings also show how entrepreneurial education reflects individual motives.

Second, our study findings suggest that entrepreneurship education positively influences individual motives. These findings support previous studies on the impact of entrepreneurship education on individual motive antecedents [7 , 54]. Thereby, it is of crucial importance that entrepreneurship education curricula be designed in such a way as to encourage participants and increase their motives, self-confidence, and creativity of students to become entrepreneurs [14]. These findings call for more empirical studies to examine the extent to which individuals’ motives have transitioned into actual entrepreneurial activities and the skills and knowledge gained from entrepreneurship education have resulted in real entrepreneurial activities.

Third, our findings show that not all individual motivations and antecedents influence entrepreneurial intentions. Results suggest that PA and PBC affect entrepreneurial intentions, while subjective norms and needs for achievement do not influence entrepreneurial intentions. Although previous studies have provided mixed results on which individual motives influence entrepreneurial intentions [19 , 81], these results need to be replicated in other institutional and cultural settings. However, it is essential to emphasize that mixed results from different countries show that each country’s cultural norms and institutional and economic development levels differ.

Lastly, we examined the mediating role of individual motives on the impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intentions. Findings show individual motives partly mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Personal attitudes and perceived behavior control mediate the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions, while subjective norms and needs for achievement have no effect. These findings partly support previous studies on the mediating role of individual motives [14, 55]. These findings call for the need to be replicated in similar institutional and cultural contexts.

4.2 Practical implications

This study has policy implications and recommendations for higher education institutions (HEI). The first implication is that the government should create a business environment by enforcing institutional settings to encourage individuals, particularly youth, to consider entrepreneurship as a career [6]. The second implication is that the government needs to acknowledge the importance of entrepreneurship education for all groups of citizens and make decisions accordingly. The third, these initiatives demonstrate the need to build a traceable system by documenting and evaluating the impact of entrepreneurship and education [17]. The fourth implication is the collaboration of policy structures and other mechanisms. This can be accomplished by broadening the scope and encouraging multidisciplinary and transdisciplinary research enterprises. Finally, the government can coordinate between HEI and businesses to promote entrepreneurship education in HEI [3]. HEI must support entrepreneurship and innovation by focusing on entrepreneurship education and knowledge transfer in the private sector. HEI should align EE with their needs by providing training activities to help small businesses grow [3]. Therefore, HEI needs to recognize the entrepreneurial potential and encourage students by strengthening teaching and research, which affects their entrepreneurial intentions [1]. Furthermore, HEI can create a culture of innovation by acting as a mechanism to facilitate the interaction between firms and academia and build a pool of social capital [5]. Considering the importance of digitalization in post-COVID, HEI needs to provide training in digital skills to become competitive and sustainable.

5 Limitations and future research

This study has some limitations and provides some suggestions for the future. The first limitation of this study is the nature of the study, namely, a cross-sectional study. For future directions, we recommend examining the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions longitudinally. Second, the sample of this study consisted of nascent entrepreneurs and individuals in the emerging phase of an idea. Therefore, for future suggestions, we recommend that the sample be heterogeneous and examined longitudinally to determine how and to what extent entrepreneurship programs influence individuals’ intentions to become entrepreneurs. Third, we focused on one country and the impact of entrepreneurship education on individual motivations and entrepreneurial intentions. This limited the generalizability of our research, both for the sample and other countries. Therefore, we suggest that future studies focus on interactions between relevant variables using larger samples in more countries. Fourth, we could not provide evidence for the relationship between entrepreneurial education post-school and entrepreneurial intentions. We suggest that future research compare the impact of school and post-school entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions. Finally, the focus of this study on a single country limited the examination of entrepreneurship education, intentions, and individual motives in different institutional and cultural contexts. Therefore, we suggest that future research test the research variables in different institutional and cultural environments.

References

Hofer

, Potter

. Universities, innovation and entrepreneurship: Criteria and examples of good practice. OECD Publishing; 2010. doi: 10.1787/5km7rq0pq00q-en

Maguire

, Lunati

. Evaluation of programmes concerning education for entrepreneurship. OECD Publishing; 2009.

Potter

. Entrepreneurship and higher education: Future policy directions. OECD Publishing; 2008. doi: 10.1787/9789264044104-16-en.

Manimala

, Mitra

. Higher education’s role in entrepreneurship and economic development. In Potter J, (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. OECD Publishing; 2008. doi: 10.1787/9789264044104-4-en.

Mitra

. Towards an analytical framework for policy development. In Potter J, (ed.), Entrepreneurship and Higher Education. OECD Publishing; 2008. doi: 10.1787/9789264044104-4-en.

Jones

, Maas

, Pittaway

. New perspectives on entrepreneurship education. In Entrepreneurship Education. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2017.

Vázquez-Burgete

, Lanero

, Raisiene

, García

. Entrepreneurship education in humanities and social sciences: Arestudents qualified to start a business?Business: Theory and Practice. 2012;13(1):27–35.

Nowiński

, Haddoud

, Lancarič

, Egerová

, Czeglédi

. The impact of entrepreneurship education,entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurialintentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Studiesin Higher Education. 2019;44(2):361–79.

Lima

, Lopes

, Nassif

, da Silva

. Opportunities to improve entrepreneurship education: Contributions considering brazilian challenges. Journal of Small Business Management. 2015;53(4):1033–51.

10.

Zhang

, Li

, Zeng

, Zhang

, Lu

. Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention among college students: A meta-analysis. IJERPH. 2022;19(19):12158.

11.

Liguori

, Winkler

. From offline to online: Challenges and opportunities for entrepreneurship education following the COVID-19 pandemic. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy. 2020;3(4):346–51.

12.

Ratten

, Jones

. Covid-19 and entrepreneurship education: Implications for advancing research and practice. The International Journal of Management Education. 2021;19(1):100432.

13.

Secundo

, Mele

, Vecchio

, Elia

, Margherita

, Ndou

. Threat or opportunity? A case study of digital-enabled redesign of entrepreneurship education in the COVID-19 emergency. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2021;166:120565.

14.

De Jorge-Moreno

, Laborda Castillo

, Sanz Triguero

. The effectof business and economics education programs on students’entrepreneurial intention. European Journal of Training and Development. 2012;36(4):409–25.

15.

Krasniqi

, Zhushi

, Bagış

, Kryeziu

, Dula

. Horizontal Job-Education Mismatch in Kosovo: Is There a Gender Gap? In Towards Economic Inclusion in the Western Balkans. Palgrave Macmillan; 2022, pp. 69-88.

16.

OECD| European Training Foundation| European Union| European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. SME Policy Index: Western Balkans and Turkey 2019 Assessing the Implementation of the Small Business Act for Europe. OECD; 2019.

17.

OECD. Publishing. Supporting Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Higher Education in Ireland. OECD Publishing; 2017.

18.

Government of Kosovo. Economic Reform Programme (ERP) 2021-2023; 2022. https://mf.rks-gov.net/desk/inc/media/06B63BCF-DEA0-4DE7-98D1-C99E0912272C.pdf. Cited October 2022.

19.

Shrivastava

, Acharya

. Entrepreneurship education intention and entrepreneurial intention amongst disadvantaged students: An empirical study. JEC. 2021;15(3):313–33.

20.

, Shi

, Ma

, Tan

. Exploration of entrepreneurship education by linear regression and psychological factor analysis. Front Psychol. 2020;11:2045.

21.

Sirelkhatim

, Gangi

. Entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review of curricula contents and teaching methods. Nisar T, editor. Cogent Business & Management. 2015;2(1):1052034.

22.

Dakung

, Orobia

, Munene

, Balunywa

. The role of entrepreneurship education in shaping entrepreneurial action of disabled students in Nigeria. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship. 2017;29(4):293–311.

23.

Fayolle

, Gailly

, Lassas-Clerc

. Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training. 2006;30(9):701–20.

24.

Bagış

, Kryeziu

, Kurutkan

, Krasniqi

, Hernik

, Karagüzel

, Karaca

, Ates

. Youth entrepreneurial intentions: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 2022. ahead of print. doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2022-0005.

25.

Kim

, Park

. Entrepreneurial education program motivations in shaping engineering students’ entrepreneurial intention: The mediating effect of assimilation and accommodation. JEEE. 2019;11(3):328–50.

26.

Sánchez

. The impact of an entrepreneurship education programon entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Journal of Small Business Management. 2013;51(3):447–65.

27.

Pedrini

, Langella

, Molteni

. Do entrepreneurial education programs impact the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention? An analysis of an entrepreneurship MBA in Ghana. JEC. 2017;11(03):373–92.

28.

Rengiah

. Effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in developing entrepreneurial intentions among Malaysian university students (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Cross University). 2013.

29.

Ajzen

. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179–211.

30.

McClelland

, Mac Clelland

. Achieving society. Simon and Schuster; 1961.

31.

Krasniqi

, Kryeziu

, Bagiş

, Kurutkan

, Idrizi

. COVID-19 and SMEs in Kosovo: Assessing effect and policy preferences. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 2021;26(01):2150005.

32.

Coskun

, Kryeziu

, Krasniqi

. Institutions and competition: Does internationalisation provide advantages for the family firms in a transition economy?JEPP. 2022;11(2/3):253–72.

33.

Kryeziu

, Coskun

. Political and economic institutions and economic performance: Evidence from kosovo. South East European Journal of Economics and Business. 2018;13(2):84–99.

34.

Kryeziu

, Coskun

, Krasniqi

. Social networks and family firm internationalisation: Cases from a transition economy. RIBS. 2022;32(2):284–304.

35.

Passoni

, Glavam

. Entrepreneurial intention and the effects of entrepreneurial education: Differences among management, engineering, and accounting students. IJIS. 2018;10(1):92–107.

36.

Ratten

, Thukral

. Sport Entrepreneurship Education. InSport Entrepreneurship 2020. Emerald Publishing Limited.

37.

DeTienne

, Chandler

. Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. AMLE. 2004;3(3):242–57.

38.

Wei

, Liu

, Sha

. How does the entrepreneurship education influence the students’ innovation? Testing on the multiple mediation model. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1557.

39.

Otache

. Entrepreneurship education and undergraduate students’ self- and paid-employment intentions: A conceptual framework. ET. 2019;61(1):46–64.

40.

Tessema Gerba

. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of business and engineering students in Ethiopia. African Journal of Economic and Management Studies. 2012;3(2):258–77.

41.

Ahmed

, Chandran

VGR

, Klobas

. Specialized entrepreneurship education: Does it really matter? Fresh evidence from Pakistan. IJEBR. 2017;23(1):4–19.

42.

Ajzen

. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus ofcontrol, and the theory of planned behavior ¹. Journalof Applied Social Psychology. 2002;32(4):665–83.

43.

Fishbein

, Ajzen

. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Philosophy and Rhetoric. 1977;10(2).

44.

Ajzen

. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52(1):27–58.

45.

Kautonen

, van Gelderen

, Tornikoski

. Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour: A test of the theory of planned behaviour. Applied Economics. 2013;45(6):697–707.

46.

Gird

, Bagraim

. The theory of planned behaviour as predictor of entrepreneurial intent amongst final-year university students. South African Journal of Psychology. 2008;38(4):711–24.

47.

Murugesan

, Jayavelu

. Testing the impact of entrepreneurship education on business, engineering and arts and science students using the theory of planned behaviour: A comparative study. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies. 2015;7(3):256–75.

48.

Souitaris

, Zerbinati

, Al-Laham

. Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing. 2007;22(4):566–91.

49.

Romero-Colmenares

, Reyes-Rodríguez

. Sustainable entrepreneurial intentions: Exploration of a model based on thetheory of planned behaviour among university students in north-east Colombia. The International Journal of Management Education. 2022;20(2):100627.

50.

Bueckmann-Diegoli

, Garcia de los Salmones Sanchez

, San Martin Gutierrez

. The development of entrepreneurial alertness in undergraduate students. Education+ Training. 2021;63(7/8):1015–26.

51.

Farrukh

, Lee

, Sajid

, Waheed

. Entrepreneurial intentions: The role of individualism and collectivism in perspective of theory of planned behaviour. Education & Training. 2019;61:984–1000.

52.

Ibidunni

, Mozie

, Ayeni

. Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst university students: Insights for understanding entrepreneurial intentions amongst youths in a developing economy. Education+ Training. 2020;63(1):71–84.

53.

Liu

, Lipowski

, Xue

, Xiao

, Liu

, Xu

, et al. The impact of entrepreneurship education of entrepreneurs on the entrepreneurial psychology of sports majors from the perspective of pedagogy. Front Psychol. 2021;12:727831.

54.

Lanero

, Vázquez

, Gutiérrez

, García

. Theimpact of entrepreneurship education in European universities: Anintention-based approach analyzed in the Spanish area. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing. 2011;8(2):111–30.

55.

Solesvik

. Entrepreneurial motivations and intentions: Investigating the role of education major. Education + Training. 2013;55(3):253–71.

56.

Russell

, Atchison

, Brooks

. Business plan competitions in tertiary institutions: Encouraging entrepreneurship education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2008;30(2):123–38.

57.

Ross

, Byrd

. Business plan competitions: Start-up’idols’ and their twenty-first century launch pads. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice. 2011;11(4).

58.

Stroe

, Parida

, Wincent

. Effectuation or causation: An fsQCA analysis of entrepreneurial passion, risk perception, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business Research. 2018;89:265–72.

59.

Altinay

, Kinali Madanoglu

, Kromidha

, Nurmagambetova

, Madanoglu

. Mental aspects of cultural intelligence and self-creativity of nascent entrepreneurs: The mediating role of emotionality. Journal of Business Research. 2021;131:793–802.

60.

Liñán

, Chen

. Development and cross–culturalapplication of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurialintentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. 2009;33(3):593–617.

61.

Mhango

. Assessing entrepreneurial career intentions of family and consumer sciences students in higher education: A model testing approach. Iowa State University; 2006.

62.

Nasiru

, Keat

, Bhatti

. Influence of perceived university support, perceived effective entrepreneurship education, perceived creativity disposition, entrepreneurial passion for inventing and founding on entrepreneurial intention. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 2015;6(3):88.

63.

Ringle

, Sarstedt

, Straub

. Editor’s comments: A critical look at the use of PLS-SEM in “MIS Quarterly”. MIS Quarterly. 2012:iii-xiv.

64.

Sugianingrat

IAPW

, Wilyadewi

IIDAY

, Sarmawa

IWG

. Determination of entrepreneurship education, family environment, and self-efficacy on entrepreneurship interest. JECO. 2020;16(1):33–43.

65.

Hair

Jr , Sarstedt

, Hopkins

, Kuppelwieser

. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review. 2014;26(2):106–21.

66.

Anwar

, Clauss

, Issah

. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance in emerging markets: The mediating role of opportunity recognition. Rev Manag Sci. 2022;16(3):769–96.

67.

Galvão

, Marques

, Ferreira

. The role of entrepreneurship education and training programmes in advancing entrepreneurial skills and new ventures. European Journal of Training and Development. 2020;44(6/7):595–614.

68.

Hair

, Hult

GTM

, Ringle

, Sarstedt

, Thiele

. Mirror, mirror on the wall: A comparative evaluation of composite-based structural equation modeling methods. J of the Acad Mark Sci. 2017;45(5):616–32.

69.

Fornell

, Larcker

. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18(1):39–50.

70.

Hair

, Risher

, Sarstedt

, Ringle

. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. EBR. 2019;31(1):2–24.

71.

Gold

, Malhotra

, Segars

. Knowledge management: An organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems. 2001;18(1):185–214.

72.

Nunkoo

, Teeroovengadum

, Ringle

, Sunnassee

. Service quality and customer satisfaction: The moderating effects of hotel star rating. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2020;91:102414.

73.

Podsakoff

, MacKenzie

, Lee

, Podsakoff

. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003;88(5):879–903.

74.

Lindell

, Whitney

. Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001;86(1):114–21.

75.

Streukens

, Leroi-Werelds

. Bootstrapping and PLS-SEM: A step-by-step guide to get more out of your bootstrap results. European Management Journal. 2016;34(6):618–32.

76.

Henseler

, Ringle

, Sarstedt

. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J of the Acad Mark Sci. 2015;43(1):115–35.

77.

Sarstedt

, Henseler

, Ringle

. Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS) path modeling: Alternative methods and empirical results. In Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing 2011. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

78.

Falk

, Miller

. Aprimer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press; 1992.

79.

Nguyen

, Nguyen

AMT

, Ba

Le L

. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) to assess the effects of entrepreneurial education on engineering students’s entrepreneurial intention. Cogent Education. 2022;9(1):2122330.

80.

Altinay

, Madanoglu

, Daniele

, Lashley

. The influence of family tradition and psychological traits on entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Hospitality Management. 2012;31(2):489–99.

81.

González-Serrano

, Valantine

, Hervás

, Pérez-Campos

, Moreno

. Sports university education andentrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between spain andlithuania. Education & Training. 2018;60(5):389–405.

82.

Jena

. Measuring the impact of business management Student’s attitude towards entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior. 2020;107:106275.

83.

Hattab

. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Egypt. The Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2014;23(1):1–8.

84.

Mahmoud

, Garba

, Abdullah

, Ali

. Assessment of entrepreneurship education on the relationship between attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and entrepreneurial intention. International Journal of Business and Technopreneurship. 2020;10(2):197–210.

85.

Rauch

, Hulsink

. Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: An investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Academy of Management Learning & Education. 2015;14(2):187–204.

86.

Kuehn

. Entrepreneurial intentions research: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education. 2008;11:87.

87.

Krueger

Jr , Reilly

, Carsrud

. Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing. 2000;15(5-6):411–32.

88.

Soomro

, Shah

. Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, need for achievement and entrepreneurial intention among commerce students in Pakistan. Education+ Training. 2022;64(1):107–25.

89.

Radu

, Redien-Collot

. The social representation of entrepreneurs in the French press: Desirable and feasible models?International Small Business Journal. 2008;26(3):259–98.

90.

Al-Mamary

, Abdulrab

, Alwaheeb

, Alshammari

. Factors impacting entrepreneurial intentions among university students in Saudi Arabia: Testing an integrated model of TPB and EO. Education+ Training. 2020;62(7/8):779–803.

91.

González-Serrano

, Valantine

, Hervás

, Pérez-Campos

, Moreno

. Sports university education and entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between spain andlithuania. Education & Training. 2018;60(5):389–405.

92.

Kolvereid

, Isaksen

. New business start-up and subsequent entry into self-employment. Journal of Business Venturing. 2006;21(6):866–85.

93.

Ephrem

, Namatovu

, Basalirwa

. Perceived social norms, psychological capital and entrepreneurial intention among undergraduate students in Bukavu. Education+ Training. 2019;61(7/8):963–83.

94.

Bueckmann-Diegoli

, Garcia de los Salmones Sanchez

, San Martin Gutierrez

. The development of entrepreneurial alertness in undergraduate students. Education+ Training. 2021;63(7/8):1015–26.

95.

Westhead

, Solesvik

. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: Do female students benefit?International Small Business Journal. 2016;34(8):979–1003.

96.

Wijayati

, Fazlurrahman

, Hadi

, Arifah

. The effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention through planned behavioural control, subjective norm, and entrepreneurial attitude. Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research. 2021:1–4.

97.

Byabashaija

, Katono

. The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 2011;16(01):127–44.

98.

Aga

, Singh

. The role of entrepreneurship education on student entrepreneurial intentions: Mediating effect of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Business and Management. 2022;28(1):31–65.

99.

Ndofirepi

. Relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial goal intentions: Psychological traits as mediators. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 2020;9(1):1–20.

The effect of entrepreneurship education on nascent entrepreneurs’ entrepreneurial intentions: The mediating effect of individual motivations

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

METHODS:

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS:

Keywords

1 Introduction

2 Literature review and hypothesis development

2.1 Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intensions

2.2 Entrepreneurship education and individual motivations

2.3 Individual motivations and entrepreneurial intensions

2.4 Mediating effect of individual motivations on the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions

3.1 Sample and data collection

Table 2 Construct reliability and validity Variables Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE EI 0.945 0.946 0.742 EE 0.955 0.957 0.506 NFA 0.894 0.894 0.579 PA 0.885 0.895 0.610 PBC 0.913 0.917 0.637 RUPE 0.922 0.923 0.628 SN 0.808 0.817 0.573 UEC 0.938 0.940 0.659 UTM 0.953 0.954 0.770

3.4 Measurement model

3.6 Structural model evaluation

4.1 Theoretical implications

4.2 Practical implications

5 Limitations and future research

References

Table 2
Construct reliability and validity

Variables Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE

EI 0.945 0.946 0.742

EE 0.955 0.957 0.506

NFA 0.894 0.894 0.579

PA 0.885 0.895 0.610

PBC 0.913 0.917 0.637

RUPE 0.922 0.923 0.628

SN 0.808 0.817 0.573

UEC 0.938 0.940 0.659

UTM 0.953 0.954 0.770