Entrepreneurship education: Analyzing the perception and motivation undergone in higher education institutions

Abstract

Young people in India are becoming more accepting of the profession of entrepreneurship. While the creation, financing, and positive and negative outcomes of a start-up have all been widely researched, more research is needed to understand the entrepreneurial environment that supports, nurtures, and educates entrepreneurs. Higher education institutions are one such element of this ecosystem that is essential in educating India’s future business people. Therefore, this study is intended to establish the practice of entrepreneurship learning in higher educational institutions in India and to analyze the perception of students on entrepreneurship education. Using proportional stratified random selection, 345 undergraduate students from India’s top-ranked universities made up the overall sample for this. SEM analysis was used to assess the study’s hypotheses, and the link between the variables was investigated using SEM analysis. The results showed thatgovernment regulation, socioeconomic circumstances, entrepreneurial orientation, monetary assistance, and entrepreneurial confidence favorably impact entrepreneurial motivation. The findings of this study will aid in the modification and customization of entrepreneurial programs to satisfy the needs of different organizations and geographical regions.

Keywords

Entrepreneurship education higher education institutions startup-business students’ perception entrepreneurial motivation

1. Introduction

The competitive potential of an organization, which in turn depends on the skills of its managers and entrepreneurs, is a key factor in the wealth and dynamism of a country [1]. To create new organizations or organizational strategies and explore new markets with cutting-edge goods and services for new economic activities, the entrepreneurial function entails the identification, appraisal, and exploitation of new prospects [2, 3]. The influence that universities have on knowledge and the entrepreneurial sector has increased their significance [4]. Universities’ primary functions are knowledge generation and knowledge transmission (teaching) (research). Institutions have, however, been forced to adjust to the environment and establish their place in the market, creating fresh ideas and looking forward to emerging trends [5], which has resulted in the development of entrepreneurial universities [6]. An important factor in a country’s economic development is entrepreneurship [7].

To create a more entrepreneurial society, the literature emphasizes the importance of education [8]. It has been demonstrated that entrepreneurship education is crucial to the success of any university, economy, or locale [9]. Students’ entrepreneurial abilities, motivations, and aspirations are intended to be developed through entrepreneurship education in Higher education institutions [10]. Compared to students who did not get an entrepreneurship education, they are more likely to have greater entrepreneurial intentions [11, 9, 12]. Therefore, universities play a more entrepreneurial role in the business sector than only developing information and human resources by starting up new small enterprises and getting involved in socio-economic growth [13], confirming their crucial position in entrepreneurship. A key idea for the university’s purpose to engage in socioeconomic development as well as its teaching and research components is the entrepreneurial university.

Universities have a distinct edge in that they may generate students who have creative ideas, gifts, and skills. Students symbolize not just the future batch of individuals, excluding they may in addition start their businesses, which would help the economy expand and create jobs [14]. Entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurship education have a strong correlation, according to empirical research [15, 16, 17]. The entrepreneurial purpose is the desire to carry out productive tasks successfully while instructing others to utilize pertinent business principles [18]. Students’ understanding of actions, thoughts, and experiences is built by their participation in experiential learning [19, 20]. To encourage entrepreneurial abilities and entrepreneurial ambition among its students, innovative higher educational institutions need to provide entrepreneurship education. According to the theory of deliberate behavior [20], which contends that a person’s behavioral goal is influenced by their attitude, individual standards, and impressions of behavior control towards performing behaviors, the entrepreneurial mindset might have been trained and refined through education about entrepreneurship [21]. While most academics agree that more programs support entrepreneurial education than ever before, little has been established about their impacts, and studies have yielded contradictory findings. The European Commission founded the innovative higher education institution in 2015 after being inspired by the UBForum in 2011. This intriguing approach emphasizes the crucial role that colleges play in entrepreneurship education while demonstrating the profound effects that entrepreneurship education and training have on students [22].

Entrepreneurship education is becoming increasingly important to participate in today’s fiercely both local and worldwide markets are competitive. Education about entrepreneurship could be viewed as a realistic alternative, presuming all individuals can be aggressive and form entrepreneurial habits given the right stimulus. Through the education and learning approach, young people are forced to develop the knowledge and abilities required to assist their integration into the workforce. Given how important entrepreneurial education is, the study’s primary goal is to ascertain how students feel about the quantity of entrepreneurial education offered by higher education institutions affects their intents and motives for starting their businesses.

This investigation is separated into five sections, beginning with an introduction (I), followed by a summary of relevant writing with an emphasis on entrepreneurship instruction (II), an explanation of the research methodology, analysis, and interpretation (III), and finally ends up with limitations and implications (IV).

2. Literature review

Table 1
Review analysis of existing works

[Citation]	Research method	Objective	Limitations
[23]	Structural equation modelling	To investigate urban students’ entrepreneurship incentives and business environment.	This study was unable to differentiate the elements of entrepreneurial drive.
[24]	Partial least squares-structural equation modeling.	To examine how successful entrepreneurial education and government support for entrepreneurship affect students.	To better explain these dimensions in various contexts, other predictors need to be researched.
[25]	Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis	To determine which combinations of entrepreneur motivation, entrepreneurial characteristics, and opportunity perception boost a firm’s performance.	An intriguing area for prospective future study is the investigation of entrepreneurial motivation and prospect perception in the field of educational perspective.
[26]	Quantitative data approach	To investigate what influences students’ ambition to become entrepreneurs.	Future research should address the study’s sample size restriction.
[27]	SEM analysis	To investigate the effects of entrepreneurial instruction on Moroccan students’ propensities.	It was necessary to talk about how entrepreneurial education may inspire students in other academic fields.
[28]	Partial least squares structural equation modelling	To investigate the influences on university students’ entrepreneurial aspirations in an emerging market.	Despite the emphasis on entrepreneurial objectives, future research might look at how entrepreneurial intention and behavior relate to one another.
[29]	Exploratory qualitative approach	To ascertain how the institutional setting affects a person’s capacity for entrepreneurship.	Needed a bigger sample.
[30]	Structural equation modeling	To research the relationships between students’ perceptions of university support, subjective standards, and entrepreneurial self-confidence, which in turn affect entrepreneurial behavior.	Lacked any attention to real entrepreneurial conduct, merely behavioral objectives.

A review of literature relevant to the study has been presented in this section and it covers earlier research studies relating to entrepreneurship perception, entrepreneurial motivation, and other related aspects of entrepreneurial development. Table 1 shows the review analysis of existing research works.

In 2020 Feixia Wu and Chuanyu Mao [23] investigated urban students’ entrepreneurial motives and business environment. 244 college learners from Wenzhou, China were used as a sample for their study, and their thoughts on the connection between the entrepreneurial setting and related incentives were examined. They concluded that perceptions of socioeconomic conditions, learning and instruction, and the supply of both financial and non-monetary assistance significantly and favorably affect college students’ entrepreneurial motivations, while perceptions of the suitability of government actions as related to fostering entrepreneurship have a negligible impact.

In 2020 JamiluBappaSalisu [24] studied the indirect impacts of effective entrepreneurship education and government support for entrepreneurship on students’ intention to start businesses in the IT sector. Data was gathered from students who were randomly selected, and PLS-SEM was used to analyze the data. All of the predicted indirect-path effects were confirmed by the outcome. It was claimed that a student’s innate attitude and behavioral control alone couldn’t affect their desire to take risks; they needed to be strengthened by efficient entrepreneurial instruction and government entrepreneurship support.

In 2021 Rafa Kusa et al. [25], identified the entrepreneur motive, entrepreneurship dimensions, and opportunity perception combinations. They gathered information from 61 SMEs that were active in Poland’s Lesser Poland region. For their proposed objectives, they conducted a fuzzy-set qualitative comparison study. Their investigation showed that the investigated component influences SME performance in a variety of ways depending on auxiliary factors. Their research specifically identified three pairings that boost a firm’s performance: risk-taking with pro-activeness, opportunity openness with proactiveness, and motivational heterogeneity with innovativeness. These findings demonstrated the need to mix several factors to enhance performance.

In 2021 Chux Gervase Iwu et al. [26], investigated the variables influencing student entrepreneurial intent. Their research is based on numerical information that was cross-sectional and gathered from university students in South Africa. According to empirical findings, the population that responded strongly agrees that entrepreneurship education is useful for economic development, demonstrating their familiarity with the role and benefits of being an entrepreneur at a macro level. Additionally, they discovered that student entrepreneurial inclination is moderately positively correlated with students’ perceptions of the lecturing team’s competence.

In 2021 Omar Boubker et al. [27], examined how entrepreneurship education for students affected their entrepreneurial goals in Morocco. According to the established model, entrepreneurial intent should be influenced by four specific factors, namely: entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial mindset, perceived societal norms, and perceived ability to entrepreneurs. To evaluate the suggested model, they used structural equation modeling. According to their findings, entrepreneurship learning, entrepreneurship mindset, and entrepreneurial intention of management students are statistically related.

In 2021 Kojo Kakra Twum et al. [28], studied the influences on university students’ entrepreneurial inclinations in an emerging economy. 720 students that were chosen from Ghana’s public and private universities participated in their study. They used an online poll to gather data, which they then examined using the partial least-squares structure equation modeling method. The results showed that the entrepreneurial intentions of an individual are influenced by their levels of creativity, risk-taking, and flexibility. The study also discovered a statistically significant relationship between network relationships and students’ propensity to start their businesses.

In 2021 Adekunle I. Ogunsadewt et al. [29], determined how the institutional setting affects a person’s capacity for entrepreneurship. They used an arrangement of intentional and snowballing sampling strategies as part of an exploratory qualitative methodology. In three different geopolitical regions of Nigeria, 30 interviews with stakeholders and university students were done. The research found that youth entrepreneurial mindset is significantly influenced by prevailing societal values and norms. Additionally, it was discovered that the majority of college-aged respondents preferred job prospects in official industries and ascribed high social values to them rather than actively expressing interest in starting new businesses.

In 2022 Maike Liu et al. [30], studied the connections between perceptions of university assistance and students’ entrepreneurship beliefs, personal standards, and self-confidence in entrepreneurship, which in turn affect entrepreneurial ambitions. 395 Chinese students provided the researchers with data. The findings indicated that through individual perceptions and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, perceived university support was indirectly connected to students’ entrepreneurial goals. Even though perceived university support was highly correlated with attitudes toward entrepreneurship, those views were not significantly predictive of entrepreneurial inclinations.

3. Research problem

It is well known that the educational system is essential in ensuring that prospective entrepreneurs have the knowledge and abilities they need to be successful. This is because it is commonly accepted in the literature that entrepreneurial talents can be taught. Given the growing significance of entrepreneurial knowledge, abilities, and attitudes in both professional and personal life, education is essential in building an entrepreneurial society and corporate culture. There are increasingly more entrepreneurial education programs accessible globally at all educational levels. Entrepreneurship learning is intended to support and develop entrepreneurial people and goals by equipping individuals with the knowledge and skills needed to start and operate firms. The development of young people’s entrepreneurial spirit desire to start their firms, employability, and other factors are all benefited from entrepreneurship education.

4. Analysis of entrepreneurship education

4.1 Research objectives

The development of entrepreneurs is significantly influenced by entrepreneurship education. The major goal of this study project is to determine how students’ perceptions of the quantity of entrepreneurial education offered by higher education institutions affect their intentions and motives for starting their businesses.

The other secondary objectives of this research study are as follows:

•
To determine the practice of entrepreneurship education in higher educational institutions in India.
•
To analyze the perception of students on entrepreneurship education.

4.2 Research questions

Entrepreneurship knowledge and abilities play a critical role in economic progress. The views of entrepreneurial settings by students in higher education have a substantial impact on their entrepreneurial impulses. A rising number of higher education students have started their businesses and are focusing more on entrepreneurship and innovation. Some of the research questions which match the objectives of this study are mentioned below:

•
RQ1: What are the factors that motivate higher education students to start their businesses?
•
RQ2: What are the perceptions of higher education students about their entrepreneurial motivation?

4.3 Research hypothesis

Government policies comprise directives, statutes, and rules introduced by government agencies in the areas of taxes, market access, and other pertinent areas. Entrepreneurs’ innovative gracefulness and, hence, their likelihood of carrying out business endeavors rises when they believe that the government’s entrepreneurship policies help to provide more chances for business and an improved marketing climate. More business possibilities are created and entrepreneurial behaviors are encouraged by government policies that support entrepreneurship. College students are somewhat protected by governmental assistance, but favored entrepreneurship policies may encourage more latent entrepreneurs. Based on the above viewpoints, the following hypothesis is proposed.

H1-
Perception of Higher education students about government regulations positively impacts their entrepreneurial motivation.

College students, who are the latent businessmen with the highest capacity for inventiveness among the current generation, develop a greater desire for entrepreneurial participation once they realize that economic progress is trending in an upward trend of innovation. Social values and opinions on entrepreneurship have an impact on entrepreneurial motivation. According to some experts, effective role models encourage college students’ entrepreneurial views and social culture plays a significant part in determining these motivations. According to several academics, economic growth significantly affects the motivation of entrepreneurs. Therefore, the following social and economic variables and entrepreneurship motivation hypothesis are proposed.
H2-
Perception of Higher education students about socio-economic circumstances positively impacts their entrepreneurial motivation.

Since it is widely believed in the literature that entrepreneurship can be taught, it is clear that the educational system plays a critical role in ensuring to facilitate aspiring entrepreneurs have the information as well as skills they need to succeed. Education is crucial in fostering an entrepreneurial society and corporate culture given the increasing importance of entrepreneurial knowledge, skills, and behaviors in both professional and private life. A person’s innate propensity or attitude toward entrepreneurship is referred to as entrepreneurial orientation. According to this viewpoint, it may be strengthened and developed during upbringing, particularly inside the educational system. Since entrepreneurial orientation is a complex multi-dimensional concept, it is important to examine and contrast behaviors and attitudes in connection to each component. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H3-
Perception of Higher education students about entrepreneurial orientation positively impacts their entrepreneurial motivation.

One of the major challenges that undergraduate entrepreneurs confront is obtaining funding. Due to the difficulty in obtaining financial assistance such as project grants or microfinance, the availability of financial capital affects the entrepreneurial endeavors of college students. One of the biggest issues facing student entrepreneurs is the lack of start-up money; it includes getting start-up money, loans with low interest rates, and other forms of finance. Students are hesitant to try entrepreneurial endeavors when they believe that the available funding is insufficient for beginning a firm. Student entrepreneurs have greater challenges than any other demographic since they typically lack start-up cash because they do not typically earn a salary. Based on the above viewpoints, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H4-
Perception of Higher education students about monetary assistance positively College students face the most obstacles to entrepreneurship since they have the least access to resources and knowledge. Strongly self-assured business owners are more likely to launch and grow their new venture. They believe they can achieve because they have self-efficacy. This increases their willingness to assume the risk of a start-up company. Then, when that firm is successful, self-confidence increases even more. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H5-
Perception of Higher education students about entrepreneurial confidence positively impacts their enterprising motivation.

Figure 1.
Proposed hypothetical framework.

Figure 1 depicts an instance of the relationship between higher education students’ opinions and entrepreneurship inclinations that were built based on the mentioned hypotheses.
4.4 Research methodology

The method chosen for the planned investigation will be explained in depth. The researcher will go over the intended study design, information to support, data collecting, and results from analysis procedures. This research study’s ethical considerations will be described in detail. Through the gathering and evaluation of data on the mindset, understanding, and expertise of students in higher educational institutions in India, it is intended that the approach selected would produce relevant information.

4.4.1 Survey instrument

The perception of higher education students toward entrepreneurship instruction is evaluated using a descriptive research strategy. Through a sample survey with a questionnaire, information was acquired. The researchers developed an instrument with questions that explicitly address the study’s factors. The questionnaire begins with demographic information about the pupils and is then broken down into three parts: Section 1 includes five questions on entrepreneurial motivation, part II has four questions on government regulation, part III has five questions on socio-economic characteristics, part IV has four questions on entrepreneurial orientation, part V has four questions on monetary assistance, and part VI has 12 questions on entrepreneurial confidence. All the items in parts I and VI were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being completely disagreed and 5 being completely agree.

The institutions gave their approval for the survey before it was distributed during designated lecture sessions. Students were given a summary of the research’s purpose before the questionnaire-administering process began, along with explicit instructions that taking part in it was completely optional and would not affect future evaluations of their entrepreneurship courses.

4.4.2 Population

Students in their last year at higher education institutions made up the study’s target group. The final-year students are utilized for this study. A multi-stage sampling strategy was used for the investigation. The research’s initial sample frame was the North East, Central, and West Regions of Northern India, which make up the country’s current geopolitical framework. One state was chosen out of every area. The following sample frame for the study is made up of these states. Using a simple random technique, all the higher education institutions in the 3 states chosen from the three regions had been cataloged and numbered. Finally, 345 responses were received from undergraduate students of selected institutions.

4.5 Research design

This study was quantitative and employed a survey research methodology. Since it enables both objective examination and forecasting of the connections between variables, a quantitative method was adopted. A survey also enables the very efficient collection of a large amount of personal information from a sizable population. The results of structural equation modeling were used to construct hypotheses, and the analysis needed to test the suggested hypothesis is descriptive statistics. Additionally, the appropriate analysis for the current study will be carried out.

4.6 Data analysis

The SPSS technology of IBM was used for the correlation and descriptive analyses, while the AMOS structural equation modeling tool of IBM was used for testing hypotheses.

Table 2
Index of fit

Index	Reference value	Annotation of fit
$x$ 2	$<$ 5	Good
	$<$ 3	Very good
GFI	$>$ 0.80	Good
	$>$ 0.90	Very good
	$>$ 0.95	Excellent
AGFI	$>$ 0.80	Good
	$>$ 0.90	Very good
	$>$ 0.95	Excellent
CFI	$>$ 0.80	Good
	$>$ 0.90	Very good
	$>$ 0.95	Excellent
NFI	$>$ 0.80	Good
	$>$ 0.90	Very good
	$>$ 0.95	Excellent
RMSEA	$<$ 0.08	Acceptable

Following the ideas, a two-stage technique was used. A confirmatory factor analysis was done as an initial stage to assess the indices of the goodness of fit of the suggested measurement model. The $x2$ value to $d f$ ratio, the index of the standardized fit, comparative fit, normative fit, and adjusted efficiency of fit of Ticker-Lewis, and the root mean square error of approximation were all taken into account while determining the model fit. The reference value of the fitness model is shown in the Table 2.

Table 3

Subgroups of construct reliability and validity

Statistics	Reference value
Individual item reliability	SMC $>$ 0.25
Factorial validity	SFL $\geqslant$ 0.5, ideally $\geqslant$ 0.7
Convergent validity	AVE $\geqslant$ 0.5
Composite reliability	CR $\geqslant$ 0.7
Discriminant validity	Coefficients of HTMT $<$ 0.85
Cronbach’s alpha	${\alpha}\geqslant$ 0.6

By assessing the components’ validity using dependability coefficients, the components’ consistency was ascertained. Fornell and Larcker Indicate that the average variation extraction, loadings, and scaled composites or construction dependability be used to determine a measurement model. The reference values for evaluating the accuracy and dependability of data are shown in Table 3.

The structural model was used in the second stage to test the hypothesis. A multi-group study was carried out to find discrepancies between the regression coefficient of the models for the students who were enrolled in entrepreneurial education and those who were not because the structural model was thought to be sufficient for forecasting entrepreneurial intentions.

5. Results and discussion

The focus of the study is to accomplish its objectives and provide in-depth answers to all of the included questions. A percentages assessment is performed to assess the response that was given in reply to the inquiry.

5.1 Respondents’ profile analysis

Table 4
Degree completion

		Valid %
Valid	This year (2023)	8.7
	Next year (2024)	53.3
	Later (2025 or more)	38.0
	Total	100.0

While checking students’ degree completion rates, Table 4 shows that 8.7% of students were complete this year (2023), 53.3% of students were next year (2024), and the remaining 38% were later (2025) or more.

Table 5

Reason for choosing this degree

		Valid %
Valid	Vocation	7.2
	Career opportunities	46.1
	Advice from family or friends	46.7
	Total	100.0

Table 5 indicates that overall, 46.7% of students chose this degree because of advice from family or friends, followed by 46.1% of students who chose this degree because of career development, while the rest of the participants, 7.2%, chose this degree because of vocation.

Table 6

Do you personally know any entrepreneurs?

		Valid %
Valid	Yes	52.5
	No	47.5
	Total	100.0

Table 6 shows that 52% of students have a personal connection to an entrepreneur, whereas the remaining 47.5% of students have no such connection.

Table 7

Starting a business immediately after finishing the degree?

		Valid %
Valid	Yes	43.8
	No	56.2
	Total	100.0

According to Table 7, 56 percent of students are not yet prepared to start a business, whereas 43.8% of students intend to do so as soon as they complete their studies.

5.2 Assessment of descriptive test

Table 8
Mean and SD of descriptive test

Variables	SD	Mean ( $\bar{X}$ )
Entrepreneurial motivation
My professional objective is to launch my own business.	0.8353	2.742
My social standing can rise through entrepreneurship.	0.9028	2.872
I can contribute to society by being an entrepreneur.	0.8941	2.736
Through my business, I can develop and perfect myself.	0.9205	3.101
Because of the favorable governmental policies, I want to try being an entrepreneur.	0.9352	3.020
Government regulation
Tax preferences are provided by the government.	0.9434	3.049
Registration and approval processes are easy and handy.	0.9775	2.667
The promotion of pertinent policies and their implementation are common.	0.9447	3.264
College students can get free business counseling from the government.	0.9932	2.551
Socio-economic circumstances
I am open to other people’s critiques of my work.	0.7100	4.041
Do you have experience creating business plans?	0.7009	4.003
Have you joined a contest where you had to develop a new product?	0.7050	4.003
Has your mentor ever inspired you to pursue your own business?	0.6884	4.003
Are there any business owners in your family?	0.6964	4.058
Entrepreneurial orientation
Enhance the entrepreneurial spirit of students.	0.7041	4.084
Improve students’ intention to start a business.	0.6782	4.104
Helps to change the behavior to become more independent.	0.7547	3.988
Makes me proactive toward business opportunities.	0.7670	3.774
Monetary assistance
Alternative financial resources are available for student entrepreneurs.	0.7482	3.887
Bank loans with lowinterest rates are available.	0.7613	3.884
Accessible is any start-up money provided by the school or graduate.	0.7702	3.754
There are numerous options for loan guarantees.	0.7275	3.754
Entrepreneurial confidence
Starting a business and keeping it running would be simple for me.	0.8106	3.925
I’m ready to launch a successful business.	0.7489	3.829
I have power over how a new company is formed.	0.9244	3.470
I am adept at creating entrepreneurial projects.	0.9279	3.487
I would be highly likely to succeed if I sought to launch a business.	0.8949	3.548

Table 8, denotes that the entrepreneurial motivations $\bar{X}$ value varies between (2.736 and 3.101), while the increased level SD is 9352. Then, the government regulation $\bar{X}$ values vary between (2.551 and 3.264) and the increased level of SD is 0.9932. Socio-economic circumstances $\bar{X}$ values vary between (4.003 and 4.058) while the increased level of SD is 0.7100. In addition, the $\bar{X}$ value of entrepreneurial orientation vary between (3.774 and 4.104) while the increase level of SD is 0.7547. The monetary assistance $\bar{X}$ value varies between (3.754 and 3.887) while the increased level of SD is .7702. Moreover, the entrepreneurial confidence $\bar{X}$ value varies between (3.470 and 3.925) while the increased level of SD is 0.9279. Among the overall indicators, government regulation has an increased level of SD 0.9932.

5.3 Measurement model assessment

Table 9
Correlations table and discriminant validity

	CR	$\alpha$	AVE	EC	EM	GR	EO	MA	SC
EC	0.716	0.793	0.342	0.585
EM	0.869	0.884	0.573	0.528	0.757
GR	0.517	0.710	0.256	0.510	1.038	0.506
EO	0.796	0.786	0.502	0.800	0.384	0.403	0.709
MA	0.890	0.902	0.669	0.866	0.271	0.241	0.628	0.818
SC	0.928	0.940	0.720	0.733	0.332	0.315	1.015	0.587	0.849

CFA was used to assess the validity of the constructs, and the measurement model indicated a good match with the following values [31]: $\chi$ 2 $=$ 3.5675; RMSEA $=$ 0.066 $<$ 0.08; CFI $=$ 0.891 $>$ 0.80; IFI $=$ 0.892 $>$ 0.80; GFI $=$ 0.823 $>$ 0.80; and TLI $=$ 0.856 $>$ 0.980. AVE& CR were used to evaluate convergence accuracy. Table 9 shows that most AVE and CR scores are higher than the reference values of 0.50 and 0.70, respectively, while just a few scores fall below the reference value, indicating that the measurements’ validity test is adequate. Also, each construct’s ( $\alpha)$ score is higher than the benchmark value of 0.70 (Table 9), indicating acceptable construct dependability. As immediately as the paired inter-construct interactions were less than the $\surd$ (square root) of the AVE values, the discriminant validitywas realized (Table 9).

5.4 Hypotheses testing with Structural model

Table 10
Result of structural model hypotheses

			$P$ value	Result
Entrepreneurial motivation	<—>	Government regulation	0.000	Supported
Entrepreneurial motivation	<—>	Socioeconomic circumstances	0.001	Supported
Entrepreneurial motivation	<—>	Entrepreneurial orientation	0.000	Supported
Entrepreneurial motivation	<—>	Monetary assistance	0.008	Supported
Entrepreneurial motivation	<—>	Entrepreneurial confidence	0.000	Supported

The structural model revealed as the hypothesis testing in which the government regulation impacts the entrepreneurial motivation ( $p=$ 0.000), supporting H1; the socioeconomic circumstances impact the entrepreneurial motivation ( $p=$ 0.001), supporting H2; the entrepreneurial orientation impacts the entrepreneurial motivation ( $p=$ 0.000), supporting H3; the monetary assistance impact the entrepreneurial motivation ( $p=$ 0.008), supporting H4; also the entrepreneurial confidence impact the entrepreneurial motivation ( $p=$ 0.000), supporting H5 (Table 10).

6. Conclusion and recommendations

India is one of the countries whose governments and educational institutions have prioritized the study of entrepreneurialism as a field of study. There have been several attempts to analyze students’ perceptions of these programs by various writers, but there has been very little research that compares students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship education across various higher education institutions in India. As it examines and analyses the perspective of learners in northern India’s higher learning institutes, and three geographical areas of that country, this study significantly advances the subject. The research reveals that government regulation, socioeconomic circumstances, entrepreneurial orientation, monetary assistance, and entrepreneurial confidence favorably impact entrepreneurial motivation.

As a result, the study proposes that the mandatory entrepreneurship education policy must be thoroughly evaluated, considering while reassessing the current policy or developing the new, updated policy, these distinctions should be carefully considered. Finally, since there are numerous entities involved in higher education, including students, educators, institute administrators, parents, the government, and employers, it is important to consider the opinions of all of these parties to make this policy of required entrepreneurship education a successful one in the future. The type of institutions, their financial capabilities, the types of student populations they are servicing, etc.Also, it is crucial to recognize that since entrepreneurship is among the most practical software subjects, academics, and business partners must work much more closely together.

All types of higher educational institutions ought to standardize the amount of entrepreneurship study programs they provide, their curricula, and their teaching methods. Furthermore, it’s important to comprehend the based-on cultural differences between various geographic areas. For example, due to fundamental variations in religious beliefs and educational attainment, the culture of Southern India differs significantly from that of Northern India concerning facilities and risk orientation.

The research on entrepreneurship education within higher education institutions provides valuable insights that can be applied and generalized globally. The study emphasizes how important it is to adopt required entrepreneurship education policies with a careful and nuanced approach. The recommendation to thoroughly evaluate existing policies or develop new ones with careful consideration of regional distinctions is a universal principle that can be adapted to diverse cultural, economic, and educational contexts. Furthermore, the emphasis on engaging various stakeholders, including students, educators, administrators, parents, government, and employers, is a key takeaway with broad applicability. This inclusive approach is crucial for the success and acceptance of entrepreneurship education policies, and policymakers worldwide can benefit from incorporating diverse perspectives in the formulation and implementation of such initiatives. In essence, the research promotes a flexible and adaptive approach that recognizes the diversity inherent in global higher education systems. It is recommended that policymakers implement a strategy that is both globallyinformed and locallypersonalized while considering the distinctive features of their respective cultures. In doing so, the study contributes to the success of entrepreneurship education projects globally by providing a road map for cultivating an entrepreneurial culture that is in line with the unique requirements and obstacles of various locations.

References

Volkmann

. Entrepreneurial studies in higher education. Higher education in Europe. 2004; 29(2): 177-185.

Wang

Yueh

Wen

. How the new type of entrepreneurship education complements the traditional one in developing entrepreneurial competencies and intention. Front Psychol. 2019 Sep 13; 10: 2048.

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): 258-277.

Zarate-Hoyos

Larios-Meoño

. The role of universities and other institutions in successfulentrepreneurship: Some insights from a literature review. Propósitos y Representaciones. 2015; 3(2): 261-317.

Vanova

Leydesdorff

. Rotational symmetry and the transformation of innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 2014; 86: 143-156.

Ranga

Etzkowitz

. Triple Helix Systems: An analytical framework for innovation policy and practice in the knowledge society. Industry & Higher Education. 2013; 27(4): 237-262.

Hattab

. Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in Egypt. The Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2014; 23(1): 1-18.

Hussain

Norashidah . Impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intentions of Pakistani students. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Business Innovation. 2015; 2(1): 43-53.

Ibrahim

WNA

Bakar

Asimiran

Mohamed

Zakaria

. Impact of Entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intentions of students in technical and vocational education and training institutions (TVET) in Malaysia. International Education Studies. 2015; 8(12): 141-156.

10.

Mahendra

Djatmika

Hermawan

. The effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention mediated by motivation and attitude among management students. State University of Malang, Indonesia. International Education Studies. 2017; 10(9): 61-68.

11.

Robinson

Neergaard

Tanggaard

Krueger

. New horizons in entrepreneurship education: From teacher-led to student-centered learning. Education + Training. 2016; 58(7/8): 661-683.

12.

Hägg

Kurczewska

. Connecting the dots – A discussion on key concepts in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Education + Training. 2016; 58(7/8).

13.

Ajzen

. Attitude, personality, and behavior (2nd ed). Poland, EU: Open University Press. 2005.

14.

Ogbari

Olokundun

Uzuegbunam

Isiavwe

Ilogho

Obi

Moses

. Data on entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial performance of aspiring entrepreneurs in selected Nigerian universities. Data in Brief. 2018; 20: 108-112.

15.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Global report (2015/2016). 2016. Retrieved from: http//www.spiritslovenia.si/resources/files/doc/publikacije/GEM_Global_Report_2015-16.pdf.

16.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Global report (2016/2017). 2017. Retrieved from: http//www.gemconsortium.org/report/49812.

17.

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Global report. 2004. Retrieved from: https//www.gemconsortium.org/report/gem-2004-global-report.

18.

Ibrahim

WNA

Bakar

Asimiran

Mohamed

and Zakaria

. Impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intentions of students in technical and vocational education and training institutions (TVET) in Malaysia. International Education Studies. 2015; 8(12): 141-156.

19.

Robinson

Neergaard

Tanggaard

and Krueger

. New horizons in entrepreneurship education: from teacher-led to student-centered learning. Education + training. 2016; 58(7/8): 661-683.

20.

Blenker

Frederiksen

Korsgaard

Müller

Neergaard

and Thrane

. Entrepreneurship as everyday practice: towards a personalized pedagogy of enterprise education. Industry and Higher Education. 2012; 26(6): 417-430.

21.

Ogbari

Olokundun

Uzuegbunam

Isiavwe

Ilogho

Obi

and Moses

. Data on entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial performance of aspiring entrepreneurs in selected Nigerian universities. Data in brief. 2018; 20: 108-112.

22.

Monitor

. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2014 global report. Babson College, Babson Park, MA, United States. 2015.

23.

Cuervo

Ribeiro

Roig

. Entrepreneurship: Concepts, theory, and perspective. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. 2007.

24.

Reynolds

. Understanding business creation: Serendipity and scope in two decades of business creation studies. Small Business Economics. 2005; 24(4): 359-364.

25.

Shane

Venkataraman

. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management. 2000; 25(1): 217-226.

26.

Audrescht

. The emergence of the entrepreneurial society. The Economic and Social Review. 2009; 40(3): 255-268.

27.

Ratten

. Entrepreneurial universities: the role of communities, people and places. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy. 2017; 11(03): 310-315.

28.

Guerrero

Urbano

Fayolle

Klofsten

Mian

. Entrepreneurial universities: Emerging models in the new social and economic landscape. Small Business Economy. 2016; 47: 551-563.

29.

Liu

Lin

Zhao

. Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front Psychol. 2019 Apr 24; 10: 869.

30.

Mónico

Carvalho

Nejati

Arraya

Parreira

. Entrepreneurship education and its influence on higher education students’ entrepreneurial intentions and motivation in Portugal. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review. 2021; 18.

31.

Bentler

. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999; 6: 1-55.

Entrepreneurship education: Analyzing the perception and motivation undergone in higher education institutions

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

Table 1 Review analysis of existing works

4. Analysis of entrepreneurship education

4.1 Research objectives

• To determine the practice of entrepreneurship education in higher educational institutions in India. • To analyze the perception of students on entrepreneurship education. 4.2 Research questions

• RQ1: What are the factors that motivate higher education students to start their businesses? • RQ2: What are the perceptions of higher education students about their entrepreneurial motivation? 4.3 Research hypothesis

4.4.1 Survey instrument

4.4.2 Population

4.5 Research design

4.6 Data analysis

Table 2 Index of fit

5.1 Respondents’ profile analysis

Table 4 Degree completion

Table 8 Mean and SD of descriptive test

Table 9 Correlations table and discriminant validity

Table 10 Result of structural model hypotheses

References

Table 1
Review analysis of existing works

•
To determine the practice of entrepreneurship education in higher educational institutions in India.
•
To analyze the perception of students on entrepreneurship education.

4.2 Research questions

•
RQ1: What are the factors that motivate higher education students to start their businesses?
•
RQ2: What are the perceptions of higher education students about their entrepreneurial motivation?

4.3 Research hypothesis

Table 2
Index of fit

Table 4
Degree completion

Table 8
Mean and SD of descriptive test

Table 9
Correlations table and discriminant validity

Table 10
Result of structural model hypotheses