Javed Iqbal
Muhammad Zaheer Asghar
Ali Asghar
Yasira Waqar6- 1School of Education, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou, China
- 2Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- 3Department of Education, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
- 4Doctoral School of ICT and Education (E-Learning), Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
- 5Dr Hasan Murad School of Management (HSM), University of Management and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan
- 6School of Education, Lahore University of Management Sciences, Lahore, Pakistan
This study explored the direct and indirect influences of the entrepreneurial curriculum on entrepreneurial competencies, using the campus learning environment as a mediator. In this study, a survey questionnaire composed of 48 items was used to collect data on the entrepreneurial curriculum, entrepreneurial competencies, and campus learning environment from pre-service vocational teachers enrolled in six universities located in Hunan Province, China. The entrepreneurial curriculum has four components, namely, curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was used through SmartPLS 3.3.3 to measure the effects. The curriculum content has a direct, significant, and positive influence on entrepreneurial competencies. For the indirect influence, all four dimensions of the entrepreneurial curriculum influenced the campus learning environment, which, in turn, was positively associated with entrepreneurial competencies. The campus learning environment was therefore revealed to play a mediating role between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. The study explored that effective entrepreneurial curriculum delivery and campus learning environment are helpful for developing entrepreneurial competencies among the pre-service vocational teachers. Universities should take initiatives to update the entrepreneurial curriculum and create a conducive campus learning environment that brings a positive change to develop entrepreneurial competencies among their students. Moreover, practical implications and future research directions are also discussed in this article.
Introduction
Entrepreneurship education is an emerging trend to develop an entrepreneurial mindset worldwide (Fayolle, 2018; Huang et al., 2020). Entrepreneurship is considered the backbone of a country’s economy; therefore, more than 3,000 universities worldwide offer multiple degrees, courses, and certifications to produce graduates with entrepreneurial competencies and mindsets (Turner and Gianiodis, 2018). Entrepreneurship competency development depends on an integrated entrepreneurial curriculum among graduates (Kwong and Thompson, 2016). Several higher education institutions have incorporated the entrepreneurial curriculum into different degree programs with a significant focus on science, engineering, technology, humanities and arts, medical sciences, and life sciences (Turner and Gianiodis, 2018). The literature on the entrepreneurial competencies of students within the vocational teaching discipline remains exceptionally limited.
The entrepreneurial curriculum emphasizes updating the curriculum content and material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment practices to prepare graduates to become self-employees after graduation (Premand et al., 2016; Iwu et al., 2019). The quality entrepreneurial curriculum content helps students establish new organizations and become promising entrepreneurs in future (Katundu and Gabagambi, 2016; Khorrami et al., 2018). However, despite various educational entrepreneurship programs, graduates still scarcely show a career in entrepreneurship or hardly consider becoming entrepreneurs (Rudhumbu et al., 2016). The solution to this problem lies under the improvement of curriculum components, such as curriculum content and material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment, because these components are considered the predictors of entrepreneurial competencies (Iwu et al., 2019). Therefore, this study explored how the entrepreneurial curriculum influences entrepreneurial competencies among students.
The literature describes various types of entrepreneurial competencies that may be accelerated through the entrepreneurial curriculum. This study aimed to analyze three possibly teachable entrepreneurial competencies, namely, networking competency, proactiveness, and conceptual understanding collectively (Morris et al., 2017). Each of these competencies is significant for fostering an entrepreneurial attitude among students. Specifically, theories of entrepreneurship education provide the foundations to establish these competencies (Morris et al., 2015). It was assumed that entrepreneurial competencies are improved through implementation of the entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment (Matlay et al., 2015; Belitski and Heron, 2017; Bischoff et al., 2018). Therefore, this study also realistically explored the campus learning environment effect on entrepreneurial competencies.
There has been criticism of the sort of students produced by higher education institutions, who may lack the necessary abilities for the demands of the modern organizational environment (Kwong et al., 2012). Knowledge-based economy increases the demand for graduates with a specific area of competencies across a wide range of entrepreneurial education. It is assumed that there is supplemented demand of the graduates who can work in a dynamic environment with their creative mindset. An entrepreneurial campus learning environment has been identified as being able to fill this gap through offering various exposures inside and outside of the classroom, such as creating intellectual interest, in-depth knowledge, teacher–student interaction, pedagogy practice, and utilizing resources to build information communication technology capabilities among future entrepreneurs (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Lee et al., 2018). Thus, the literature provides the foundation to explore the influence of the entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment on entrepreneurial competencies (Yin and Wang, 2017; Maxwell et al., 2018; Heaton et al., 2019). The existing literature suggested to explore the connection between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies through the campus learning environment. Therefore, we assumed that the campus learning environment has a mediating role between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. Thus, the present study explores the mediating role of the campus learning environment between entrepreneurial competencies and the entrepreneurial curriculum.
Despite the high level of interest among scholars and practitioners, there are still significant gaps in understanding the connections between the entrepreneurial curriculum, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies. First, this type of research is mostly conducted in advanced countries, such as Finland, the United States, Australia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom (Seikkula-Leino, 2011; QAA, 2012; Lee and Park, 2014; Choi and Markham, 2019; Maritz et al., 2019). Entrepreneurship education research results are meaningful in emerging nations to produce quality entrepreneurs. Second, in the higher education sector, academic research focuses on changing and updating the entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment to develop entrepreneurial competencies among their students. Third, fewer research studies focus on exploring the connections between the entrepreneurial curriculum, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies; however, a three-way connection between the entrepreneurial curriculum, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies was also yet to be explored. Particularly, researchers have not measured the campus learning environment as a mediating construct between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies.
Based on the aforementioned research motivation, this study aims to address these gaps through a synthesized research framework. This study emphasizes the intervening construct of the campus learning environment, and multiple dimensions of the entrepreneurial curriculum (content, material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) were used in this study. Within this synthesized research framework, the study addressed the following two research questions (RQs):
RQ1: Do entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment influence entrepreneurial competencies?
RQ2: Does campus learning environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies?
Section “Literature review” deals with the background, conceptual framework, and hypothesis. Section “Theoretical framework and hypotheses formulation” comprises methodology. Section “Methodology” explains the analysis and interpretations. Section “Data analysis” discusses the results and presents the conclusions. Section “Descriptive statistics” presents implications and future research directions.
Literature review
Entrepreneurial curriculum in China
In China, universities are becoming aware of the significance of entrepreneurship education. Recent studies have examined the practical and theoretical issues of designing the entrepreneurial curriculum in Chinese universities (Saklofske et al., 2003). Furthermore, Dou et al. (2019) explained that entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities and the entrepreneurial curriculum have a positive role in enhancing the entrepreneurial attitude and competencies among students. It was also identified a three-factor model from Chinese entrepreneurship education, which included the curriculum, environment, and social environment resources. Universities in China were implementing necessary subjects for entrepreneurship education. Universities also implemented an integrated curriculum in their various degree programs, which are highly positively correlated with the development of an entrepreneurial mindset of the graduates, but it may have still failed to lower the employment pressure (Lin and Xu, 2017). The whole situation provoked the researchers and academicians to explore the real problems regarding entrepreneurship education, including entrepreneurial curriculum, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies in the Chinese context of higher education.
Entrepreneurial curriculum
The entrepreneurial curriculum is defined as the subject-specific nature of curriculum material, content, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment practices utilized by universities to promote students’ entrepreneurial skills, behaviors, attitudes, and competencies (GEM, 2005). The curriculum content is the range of topics (both from theory and practice) that are aligned to develop entrepreneurial competencies among students (Kazakeviciute et al., 2016). The curriculum material includes resources required to deliver a specific curriculum. It includes textbooks, lecture notes, and other AV aids. Teaching strategies are methods used to transmit the curriculum content (Torres-Barreto et al., 2020). The feedback and assessment practices are an important component of curriculum instructions for the development of entrepreneurship competencies. They involve assessing the whole program to judge its effectiveness in developing entrepreneurial competencies among students (Kazakeviciute et al., 2016). Several studies indicated that the entrepreneurial curriculum needs unique content, material, teaching strategies, feedback, and assessment approaches to engage students to improve their entrepreneurial competencies (Plumly et al., 2008). Aghajani and Abbasgholipour (2012) explored that an entrepreneurial curriculum must challenge the students to increase their responsibilities and hardworking spirit to start their own venture after their graduations. Kirby et al. (2011) emphasized that students learn how to apply learned concepts in real entrepreneurial conditions taught through the entrepreneurial curriculum, which ultimately builds entrepreneurial competencies.
Entrepreneurial competencies
Based on an extensive literature review on entrepreneurial competencies, we defined entrepreneurial competencies as the set of behavioral predispositions that influence students’ abilities to succeed in an entrepreneurial venture (Lee et al., 2018). In this study, entrepreneurial competencies are defined in three dimensions: networking skills, conceptual understanding competencies, and proactivity (Morris et al., 2017). Networking skills is the most important competency in entrepreneurial ventures, where entrepreneurs maintain and build new relations with others stakeholders. In Raza et al. (2018), conceptual understanding competencies are defined as collecting learned patterns, repeated behaviors, and high-order competencies that deal with the turbulent business environment. Proactivity is defined as opportunity-seeking behavior patterns and the tendency to push an idea (Morris et al., 2017; Raza et al., 2018). Therefore, as an important point of explanation, this study is designed with the presumption that the entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment are likely to impact students’ entrepreneurial competencies.
Campus learning environment
In this study, we defined the campus learning environment as it offers various exposure inside and outside of the classroom, such as creating intellectual interest, provision of in-depth knowledge, teacher–student interaction, pedagogy, resources, and information communication technology resources to develop entrepreneurial competencies (Fayolle and Gailly, 2015; Lee et al., 2018). The campus learning environment offers maximum learning opportunities related to developing entrepreneurial competencies through various objects, such as activities, actions, policies, ecological environment, and psychology (Bogatyreva et al., 2019; Grinevich et al., 2019; Yi, 2020). It was assumed that further research was required to build more in-depth understanding on the role of the campus learning environment to enhance entrepreneurial competencies among students. Therefore, this study explored the mediating role of the campus learning environment between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies.
Theoretical framework and hypothesis formulation
Research framework
The literature review revealed that entrepreneurial curriculum dimensions (curriculum content and material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) enhance entrepreneurial competencies through the campus learning environment. The entrepreneurial curriculum and learning environment are the main areas of interest for researchers and teachers due to their role in developing entrepreneurial competencies. The entrepreneurial curriculum is being treated as a core foundation of entrepreneurial competencies (Maxwell et al., 2018) with a mediating role of the campus learning environment (Miller and Acs, 2017). The theory of planned behavior and the human capital theory assert that implementing an entrepreneurial curriculum transforms entrepreneurial competencies (Ajzen, 1991). Similarly, an entrepreneurial curriculum influences student learning in a dynamic higher education environment and constitutes essential tools for their entrepreneurial competencies. Therefore, the current study emphasizes that a campus learning environment is likely to facilitate the relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. In addition, this study examined the impact of the entrepreneurial curriculum on entrepreneurial competencies through the campus learning environment in an emerging country.
Furthermore, the present study supports the previous literature by clarifying the impact of the entrepreneurial curriculum and dimensions on shaping the campus learning environment and leading to entrepreneurial competencies. It has been established that students can learn entrepreneurial competencies by using campus resources effectively when they are in the university. Entrepreneurial competencies have been described as individuals’ abilities to start their work (De Massis et al., 2018). However, entrepreneurial competencies might also be evaluated related to entrepreneurial intentions. Therefore, universities have common practice to carefully examine their entrepreneurial curriculum in achieving entrepreneurial competencies. Universities are required to ensure a quality integrated curriculum across the programs offered to undergraduates and graduates. It is challenging for universities to develop entrepreneurial competencies among students through an entrepreneurial curriculum, except for the inclusive strategy that may enable universities to confront this challenge (Tanveer and Haq, 2021). Previous literature clarifies that the entrepreneurial curriculum has an important relationship with the campus learning environment and entrepreneurial competencies among students (Collins et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2018). The main purpose of an entrepreneurial curriculum is to develop entrepreneurial competencies through a campus learning environment in higher education. However, universities are also in dire need of an entrepreneurial curriculum that should be an effective and competent faculty to teach and execute this curriculum (Tanveer and Haq, 2021). Based on the literature and theory of planned behavior and human capital theory, scholars like Heuer and Kolvereid claim that students’ entrepreneurial competencies with an effective entrepreneurial curriculum have deep-rooted influences on motivation to start their work activity after graduation (2014). Furthermore, a university entrepreneurial curriculum through a campus learning environment helps the students to improve their entrepreneurial competencies. Based on these discussions, the proposed theoretical model of the study is presented in Figure 1 that presents all hypotheses.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies
Multiple studies on entrepreneurship have highlighted the positive connection between the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content, material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) and entrepreneurial competencies (Seikkula-Leino, 2011; Brush, 2014; Esmi et al., 2015; Kummitha and Majumdar, 2015; Marques et al., 2018; Sánchez-Barrioluengo and Benneworth, 2019). Researchers have designed and published studies focused on the entrepreneurial curriculum and its effects on entrepreneurial competencies (Chen et al., 2015). Researchers with the common approach claim that an effective entrepreneurial curriculum improves entrepreneurial competencies (Heuer and Kolvereid, 2014). Others suggest that the entrepreneurial curriculum content influences entrepreneurial, critical thinking abilities (Olokundun et al., 2017). Furthermore, the theory of planned behavior and human capital theory explain entrepreneurial attitude, which is a positive factor that influences entrepreneurial competencies (Heuer and Kolvereid, 2014). The need for changes in the critical entrepreneurial curriculum for developing entrepreneurial mindset has been recognized (Akhmetshin et al., 2019). Similarly, Tanveer and Haq (2021) suggested revisions in the entrepreneurial curriculum to improve entrepreneurial competencies among students. These findings have significantly assisted in the dire need of more understanding of the relationships between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. Therefore, a positive relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content and material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) and entrepreneurial competencies is assumed in the following hypotheses:
H1a: Entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content) positively influences entrepreneurial competencies.
H1b: Entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum material) positively influences entrepreneurial competencies.
H1c: Entrepreneurial curriculum (teaching strategies) positively influences entrepreneurial competencies.
H1d: Entrepreneurial curriculum (feedback and assess ment) positively influences entrepreneurial competencies.
Entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment
Researchers have developed theoretical models and related concepts to connect the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content and material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) with the campus learning environment. These studies support the notion that the entrepreneurial curriculum positively correlates with the campus learning environment (Arranz et al., 2017; Igbokwe-Ibeto et al., 2018; Akhmetshin et al., 2019; Gieure et al., 2019; Tanveer and Haq, 2021). The literature consistently argues that university curriculum affects students’ academic performance (Kazakeviciute et al., 2016). Also, an integrated curriculum has created students’ interest to be more efficient, whereas they get exposure from the campus learning environment, which can increase academic performance (Tanveer and Haq, 2021)_ENREF_31. The entrepreneurial curriculum is in the university environment, which prepares and inspires students to start their work activity after graduation (Aghajani and Abbasgholipour, 2012). These arguments suggest that an entrepreneurial curriculum is associated with the campus learning environment. Therefore, the present study explores the relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment. We assumed these relationships in the following hypotheses:
H2a: Entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content) influences the campus learning environment.
H2b: Entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum material) influences the campus learning environment.
H2c: Entrepreneurial curriculum (teaching strategies) influences the campus learning environment.
H2d: Entrepreneurial curriculum (feedback and assessment) positively influences the campus learning environment.
Campus learning environment and entrepreneurial competencies
A number of studies highlighted the positive association between campus learning environment and entrepreneurial competencies (Pihie and Bagheri, 2013; Gieure et al., 2019; O’Reilly et al., 2019). The campus learning environment is the antecedent of entrepreneurial competencies (Ibrahim and Lucky, 2014). The theory of planned behavior and human capital theory endorse the approaches that universities education may create opportunities to enhance entrepreneurial competencies (Gür et al., 2017; Hahn et al., 2017). The campus learning environment pushes the students toward learning entrepreneurial competencies (Rasmussen and Borch, 2010). This study indicates that the campus learning environment has a significant and positive association with entrepreneurial competencies. The study predicts that the campus learning environment positively influences entrepreneurial competencies, which results in the following hypothesis:
H3: Campus learning environment positively influences entrepreneurial competencies.
Mediation effect of campus learning environment
Studies reviewed earlier describe that the campus learning environment in various forms directly affects entrepreneurial competencies (Davey, 2015). Azahari Ramli et al. (2018) suggest that the campus learning environment, in terms of resources, act as a mediating factor between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial competencies. Similarly, Ibrahim and Lucky (2014) found that the campus learning environment has a positive role in enhancing entrepreneurial competencies.
In addition, researchers have also explored the mediating role of the campus learning environment in the relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. Luo et al. (2022) conducted a study with 1,100 students in Guangdong, China, and found that the entrepreneurial environment is “the basis for the entrepreneurial project execution and can provide sufficient external conditions for the entrepreneurial activity implementation and concluded that a positive entrepreneurial environment can provide rich resources to support entrepreneurial activities and meet the elemental conditions required for the development of entrepreneurial projects.” Furthermore, Valencia-Arias et al. (2022) found that university environments equipped with tools that facilitate training and the development of entrepreneurial skills using different types of resources allow students to have better attitudes toward entrepreneurship. A campus environment that promotes entrepreneurship through experiential learning is shown to have positive outcomes on students’ career aspirations and entrepreneurial abilities, through various studies, including those by Barnes and de Villiers Scheepers (2018) and Luo et al. (2022). Similarly, Iqbal et al. (2022b) conducted a study on students of higher education and found that the curriculum along with the knowledge of ICT enhanced the entrepreneurial competencies among the students. Another study found that the curriculum like curriculum content, material, and teaching strategies enhanced student outcomes, such as ICT competencies (Ashraf et al., 2022). The authors of the present study thus affirm from findings of the aforementioned literature that the campus learning environment works as a mediator between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. Therefore, this study explores the mediating role of the campus learning environment between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. Hence, the following hypotheses are put forward:
H4a: Campus learning environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content) and entrepreneurship competencies.
H4b: Campus learning environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum material) and entrepreneurship competencies.
H4c: Campus learning environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum (teaching strategies) and entrepreneurship competencies.
H4d: Campus learning environment mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum (feedback and assessment) and entrepreneurship competencies.
Methodology
Design of the research
The cross-sectional survey research design was used for the execution of this study (Iqbal et al., 2022a). We collected the data on entrepreneurial curriculum, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies by applying a survey questionnaire technique in the target population of pre-service vocational teachers enrolled in the six universities in Hunan, China. All respondents participated voluntarily. We applied the measurement modeling technique to ensure the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. Descriptive statistical analyses were used to describe the demographic characteristic of the respondents. Moreover, PLS-SEM 3.3.3 (the partial least squares structural equation modeling) was used through SmartPLS statistical software to analyze the effects of the entrepreneurial curriculum on entrepreneurial competencies and the campus learning environment as mediators (Chen et al., 2022; Jebbouri et al., 2022). It was assumed that the study would expose a significant relationship between the variables: entrepreneurial curriculum, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies.
Research participants
This quantitative research explored the impact of entrepreneurial the curriculum on entrepreneurial competencies with the mediating role of the campus learning environment in China. A stratified random sampling technique was used for selection of participants. The stratified random sampling technique involves dividing the population into smaller sub-groups based on respondents’ shared attributes or characteristics. The target population of this research consisted of pre-service vocational teachers (undergraduates, graduates, and post-graduates). Before we began the final data collection, a pilot study was conducted to validate the instruments, and the necessary data and trends were obtained. We collected the data from vocational teacher education departments in the six universities of Hunan Province. We circulated 500 questionnaires among the targeted population from January 2021 to February 2021 and received 470 questionnaires, while nine questionnaires were found incomplete. Hence, the total useable sample size was 461 pre-service vocational teachers, resulting in a response rate of 92.2%.
Instrumentation
In this research, entrepreneurial curriculum components (curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) were independent variables, and entrepreneurial competencies is the dependent variable, while the campus learning environment remained the mediator. The first part of the instrument contained the description of research purposes and guidelines for responding to secrecy and privacy statements. The second part of the instrument consists of participants’ demographic information, such as gender, education level, age, and CGPA. The third part of the instrument describes the 36 items used for selected variables’ items on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagreed to 7, strongly agreed). The pilot study was conducted on 30 students with same demographic characteristics as the final data sample must check analysis bias. The pilot study was conducted on 30 students with same demographic characteristics as the final data sample had, however, these respondents were not included in final sample. The modified questionnaire was administered for final data collection (see Appendix 1).
Variables measures
Curriculum contents
The five items of the questionnaire related to the curriculum content were adapted and modified from the work of TLEMU-HKU (2018). The responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree). The sample items of the questionnaire included “The teachers made it clear right from the start that they expect us to become entrepreneurs” and “the teacher provides detailed information about entrepreneurship competencies.” Cronbach’s alpha value for the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content) was 0.763 (see Table 1), and the standard Cronbach’s alpha index was 0.070 or higher, which meets the threshold criteria.
Table 1. Reliability and convergent validity.
Curriculum material
The seven items related to curriculum material were adapted and modified from the work of TLEMU-HKU (2018). The responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree). The sample items of the questionnaire included “our teachers use material of entrepreneurial education that enhances my motivation to develop entrepreneurial competencies” and “our teacher uses audio, video, and well-devised material about entrepreneurship in the class.” Cronbach’s alpha index was 0.882, and the standard Cronbach’s alpha index was 0.070 or higher that met the threshold criteria (see Table 1).
Teaching strategies
The six items related to teaching strategies were adapted and modified from the work of TLEMU-HKU (2018). The responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree). The sample items of the questionnaire included “our teacher keeps me motivated and engaged in entrepreneurial learning” and “our teacher uses various teaching strategies during teaching.” Cronbach’s alpha value for the entrepreneurial curriculum (teaching strategies) (0.892) and the standard Cronbach’s alpha index (0.070 or higher) have met the threshold criteria (see Table 1).
Feedback and assessment
The six items related to feedback and assessment were adapted and modified from the work of TLEMU-HKU (2018). The responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree). The sample items of the questionnaire included “our teachers give constructive feedback on my progress” and “the teachers invest much time into commenting on my work.” Cronbach’s alpha (0.889) and the standard Cronbach’s alpha index (0.070 or higher) have met the threshold criteria (see Table 1).
Campus learning environment
The seven items related to the campus learning environment were adapted and modified from the work of TLEMU-HKU (2018). The responses were recorded on a seven-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree). The sample items of the questionnaire included “I am able to discuss topics of broader intellectual interest with teachers about entrepreneurship,” and “my teachers provide opportunities for interaction in class.” Cronbach’s alpha value for the campus learning environment (0.805) and the standard Cronbach’s alpha index (0.070 or higher) have met the threshold criteria.
Entrepreneurial competencies
The 17 items related to entrepreneurial competencies were adapted and modified from the work of Man (2001). The responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 7, strongly agree). The sample items of the questionnaire included “after completing my education program, and I would make a rational decision in the organization and negotiate with others.” Cronbach’s alpha (0.939) and standard Cronbach’s alpha index (0.70) have met the threshold criteria.
Demographics
Selected universities develop entrepreneurial competencies among students (prospective educational entrepreneurs) by creating a supportive learning environment and effective curriculum delivery through the effective and integrated entrepreneurial curriculum. The samples’ demographic characteristics included gender, background, age, education level, and CGPA. There were 461 respondents, representing male 121 (26.2%) and female 340 (73.8%); rural 197 (42.7) and urban (57.3%); less than 22 years, 279 (60.5%), 23–30 years, 165 (35.8%), and above 30 years, 17 (3.7%); undergraduate 159 (34.5), graduate 252 (54.7%), and post-graduate 50 (10.8%); and respondents having less than 2.00 CGPA 3 (.7%), 2.00–3.00 125 CGPA (27.7%), 3.10–3.50 CGPA 233 (50.5%), and 3.51–4.00 CGPA 100 (21.7%). The details of the demographics of sample are exhibited in Table 2.
Table 2. Participants’ demographics.
Data analysis
The PLS-SEM evaluates partial model structures by merging principal component analysis with ordinary least squares regressions (Mateos-Aparicio, 2011). The study used the partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM 3.2.2) method to investigate direct and indirect effects used in the theoretical framework (Rasool et al., 2019). For this study, we selected PLS-SEM to analyze our study’s complex structural modeling. Our research is composed of reflective scales. PLS-SEM deals with both small and large sample sizes. Moreover, it works well with distribution issues, such as lack of normality (Hair et al., 2019; Rasool et al., 2019).
We began data analysis by applying measurement modeling to ensure the reliability and validity of scales (curriculum objective, teaching strategies, feedback and assessment, campus learning environment, and entrepreneurial competencies). Reflective measurement models were tested on indicator loading, Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, composite reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) for convergent validity. The indicator loading threshold value is more than 0.60. The threshold value for Cronbach’s alpha, rho_A, and composite reliability is 0.70 on each construct. The AVE-required threshold value is 0.50. Table 1 indicates that reliability indicators showed the required level of the indexes, such as indicator loading > 0.60, Cronbach’s alpha > 0.70, rho_A > 0.70, and composite reliability > 0.70, which means the instrument was reliable. Table 1 also indicates that the AVE above 0.50 means the instrument fulfilled the convergent validity requirements. It was concluded that the instrument was reliable and valid. The detailed results are also presented in Table 1.
Convergent validity was measured by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) at the threshold value of 0.50 for all items on each construct. Table 3 shows that AVE values for each construct are higher than the threshold value. Furthermore, the heterotrait-to-monotrait (HTMT) ratio of the correlations was used for the discriminant validity assessment proposed by Henseler et al. (2015). The threshold value of the HTMT ratio is lower than 0.85 or 0.90. Table 3 exhibits the HTMT values of all constructs, which are less than the threshold value 0.85 or 0.90 and validated the constructs.
Table 3. Discriminant validity (HTMT).
We measured and solved the collinearity problems through structural equation modeling (SEM). The indicator used for collinearity testing is the variance inflation factor (VIF) (Huang, 2021). The threshold value for the VIF is less than 5. Table 4 indicates that the VIF range is between 1.542 and 3.066. It shows there was no collinearity problem between dimensions. Common method bias was found through Harman’s one-factor analysis (Mittal and Dhar, 2015). One principal component factor was applied for factor analysis of all constructs. It is recommended (Podsakoff, 2003) that results should not cross the threshold of 50% for unrotated factor analysis, while the result of Harman’s one-factor analysis showed 38.3%. It was found that there was no issue of CMB.
Table 4. Collinearity analysis and model fit.
In total, three main indicators, namely, SRMR, NFI, and RMS_theta, were used for testing the model fit in PLS-SEM. The threshold values for SRMR, NFI, and RMS_theta are less than 0.08, above 0.90, and less than 0.12, respectively (Bentler and Bonett, 1980; Henseler et al., 2014). Table 4 indicates that the SRMR, NFI, and RMS_theta indexes are 0.054, 0.878, and 0.096, respectively. All three major indicators for model fit indices showed that the model was reasonably well fitted in general. The collinearity and model fit analysis details are presented in Table 4.
The explanatory power of the model was assessed based on the R2 value. The range of R2 values is from 0 to 1. The explanatory power threshold values 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 are considered robust, moderated, and feeble. Table 5 shows that the campus learning environment has a strong explanatory power, while entrepreneurial competencies have moderated explanatory power. Therefore, the model explains the latent variables very well and has a reasonable degree of explanatory power.
Table 5. R-square value.
Descriptive statistics
The survey respondents were analyzed using descriptive statistics presented in Table 6. As mentioned earlier, the responses were taken on a seven-point Likert scale. The range of mean scores of responses is 4.156–5.260. The standard deviation range was recorded from 0.899 to 1.513.
Table 6. Descriptive statistics.
Hypothesis testing
The study tested the hypothesis through a bootstrapping mechanism (5,000) by statistically efficient software SmartPLS (PLS-SEM 3.3.3) (Hair et al., 2016). Table 7 shows the direct and indirect effects of variables mentioned in the theoretical framework, along with t-values and P-values. The results exposed that the curriculum content positively and significantly influenced entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.133, p < 0.05); thus, H1a was approved. However, the curriculum material did not positively and significantly influence entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.011, p > 0.05); thus, H1b was not approved. Likewise, teaching strategies were also not positively and significantly influenced entrepreneurial competencies (β = −0.03, p > 0.05). Thus, H1c was not supported. Similarly, feedback and assessment did not have a positive influence on entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.125, p > 0.05). Therefore, H1d was not approved.
Table 7. Direct relations.
Moreover, the curriculum content had a positive and significant effect on the campus learning environment (β = 0.121, p < 0.05), and H2a was approved. Similarly, the curriculum material had a positive and significant effect on the campus learning environment (β = 0.171, p < 0.05), and H2b was supported. Likewise, teaching strategies had a positive and significant effect on the campus learning environment (β = 0.422, p < 0.05), and H2c was approved. Furthermore, feedback and assessment had a positive and significant effect on the campus learning environment (β = 0.319, p < 0.05), and H2d was accepted. Moreover, the campus learning environment had a positive and significant connection with entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.244, p < 0.05), and H2b was supported. In addition, we also measured two control variables, namely, gender and age. Both gender and age had direct influence on entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.117, p < 0.05; β = 0.115, p < 0.05).
Mediation effects
To test campus learning environment-mediating effects, we checked the indirect effects of the curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, feedback and assessment, and entrepreneurial competencies; the results are exhibited in Table 8. An indirect effect was found a positive and significant influence of the curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment on entrepreneurial competencies (β = 0.39, p < 0.05, β = 0.55, p < 0.05, β = 0.78, p < 0.05, and β = 0.135, p < 0.05). Thus, the campus learning environment mediated the relationship between curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment, and entrepreneurial competencies. In order to find the partial mediation or full mediation of curriculum material was significant by direct and indirect effects. We find that curriculum material had partially mediated the effects on entrepreneurial competencies through campus learning environment while curriculum content, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment were only indirectly influenced entrepreneurial competencies which have full mediation. As indicated in Table 8, hypotheses H4b-H4d were accepted. Figure 2 and Table 8 present details of the results.
Table 8. Indirect relations.
Figure 2. Structural relations between constructs.
Discussion
The majority of research on entrepreneurship education has been conducted in advanced countries (Seikkula-Leino, 2011; Kirkley, 2017; Iwu et al., 2019). In this research, we contributed some work for academicians and practitioners by producing knowledge in an emerging nation. First, this study investigated the influence of the entrepreneurial curriculum on entrepreneurial competencies. Second, we investigated the direct influence of the entrepreneurial curriculum on the campus learning environment. Third, the present study assessed the direct influence of the campus learning environment on entrepreneurial competencies. Fourth, this study explored the intervening role of the campus learning environment in the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies.
At first, the current study explored the direct connection between the curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and assessment and feedback, and entrepreneurial competencies. The results revealed that the entrepreneurial curriculum content has a positive association with entrepreneurial competencies and supported our intuitions in hypothesis H1a. The results were consistent with previous study findings that the curriculum content influenced entrepreneurial competencies (Shirokova et al., 2017; Gieure et al., 2019). Lee et al. (2018) conducted a study on 927 university students to identify whether the university-based curriculum practices have an influence on entrepreneurial competencies. However, the results revealed that entrepreneurial curriculum material, teaching strategies, and assessment and feedback were not associated significantly and positively with the entrepreneurial competencies, and our hypotheses H1b, H1c, and H1d were disapproved. The results were constant with findings of previous studies (Igbokwe-Ibeto et al., 2018; Akhmetshin et al., 2019). Akhmetshin et al. (2019) explored the entrepreneurial curriculum was not aligned with entrepreneurial competencies in Russia and suggested revisions in the entrepreneurial curriculum. The possible reason could be that certain components of the entrepreneurial curriculum needed revisions in China.
Second, the current study investigated the entrepreneurial curriculum has a positive effect on the campus learning environment. The results found that the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) is positively and significantly associated with the campus learning environment, which endorses our hypotheses H2a–H2d. The results were also in line with previous studies results that showed the entrepreneurial curriculum is associated with the campus learning environment (Byun et al., 2018; Olutuase et al., 2020). A study conducted in America confirmed that the entrepreneurial curriculum and the campus learning environment are associated (Miller and Acs, 2017). Therefore, it was concluded that an effective entrepreneurial curriculum might engage students better in the campus learning environment.
Third, the study explored the direct effect of the campus learning environment on entrepreneurial competencies. The results of the present study revealed that the campus learning environment has a significant and positive effect on entrepreneurial competencies and approved our hypothesis H3. Previous studies also confirmed our study results that the campus learning environment is associated with entrepreneurial competencies (Beliaeva et al., 2017; Secundo et al., 2017). Hasan et al. (2017) conducted a study in Bangladesh among university students and found that university education was positively associated with entrepreneurial development. Therefore, we may conclude that the campus learning environment has a positive role to enhance entrepreneurial competencies among students.
Last, this study measured the mediating role of the campus learning environment between the entrepreneurial curriculum and entrepreneurial competencies. The results confirmed that the campus learning environment mediated the relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) and entrepreneurial competencies, which approved our hypotheses H4a–H4d. These findings are in line with past research conducted on exploring the mediating effect of the entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes (Barnes and de Villiers Scheepers, 2018; Lu et al., 2021; Luo et al., 2022; Valencia-Arias et al., 2022). Furthermore, Choi and Markham (2019) discussed the significance of the campus learning environment role to develop entrepreneurial competencies among the students as per the need of industry. Winkler et al. (2018) also explored using action research as a catalyst to constantly improve the entrepreneurship education environment based on a deeper understanding of students’ needs to build entrepreneurial competencies. We may therefore conclude that this finding is the novelty of our research and the latest contribution in field of entrepreneurial education and competencies.
Conclusion
This study aimed to measure the influence of the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) on entrepreneurial competencies. Furthermore, this study investigated the influence of the entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) on the campus learning environment. Similarly, the present study assessed the influence of the campus learning environment on entrepreneurial competencies. Finally, this study also explored the intervening role of the campus learning environment in the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum (curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment) and entrepreneurial competencies.
By and large, this study exposed a statistically significant and positive correlation between the entrepreneurial curriculum content and entrepreneurial competencies among the pre-service vocational teachers. In addition, this study found no significant relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum material, teaching strategies, and entrepreneurial competencies. The study also explored the significant and positive correlation between the entrepreneurial curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, feedback and assessment, and campus learning environment. Furthermore, it was also found that the campus learning environment and entrepreneurial competencies are positively and significantly correlated. For an indirect relationship, we find that the campus learning environment mediated the relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, feedback and assessment, and entrepreneurial competencies of pre-service vocational teachers.
The finding of this research could be interpreted as follows: (1) It is concluded that the entrepreneurial curriculum content is a predictor of entrepreneurial competencies. Moreover, the educational program with the entrepreneurial curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment required some urgent changes for their influential role in developing entrepreneurial competencies. (2) The entrepreneurial curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment were associated with the campus learning environment. It was also concluded that effective entrepreneurial curriculum delivery might give a better output when it works with the campus learning environment. (3) The campus learning environment correlated with entrepreneurial competencies, and we may conclude that the campus learning environment plays a vital role in shaping entrepreneurial competencies. 4) It was concluded that campus learning environment plays a vital along with the entrepreneurial curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment to enhance entrepreneurial competencies. It can be concluded that the entrepreneurial curriculum works through the campus learning environment in shaping entrepreneurial competencies among students.
Implications
The initial step is key to understanding critical entrepreneurial competencies and knowing how the flow theory can energize the basic insights to generate new ventures. This study revealed certain theoretical and practical implications, such as entrepreneurial competencies, could be developed by combining the entrepreneurial curriculum and conducive campus learning environment. The results confirmed the theory of plane behavior and human capital theory that students must have been given the vision to create new ventures. This study has practical implications, which may help enhance entrepreneurial competencies. This research may help university management understand the weaker curriculum elements and get guidelines to change them. The university should bring about changes in the curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment. University management ensures the provision of the resources to maintain the campus learning environment, which is helpful to develop entrepreneurial competencies among pre-service vocational teachers. Moreover, through the results, university teachers may understand the significance of the curriculum components, such as curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment approaches toward building a conducive campus learning environment, which supports to build entrepreneurial competencies among pre-service vocational teachers. Similarly, from the outcomes of the study, curriculum developers can comprehend the effective entrepreneurial components curriculum content, curriculum material, teaching strategies, and feedback and assessment approaches and bring effective changes in these components to enhance the entrepreneurial competencies among pre-service vocational teachers.
Limitations and future research direction
The study has few limitations that may influence the interpretation of results. The participants in this study are from a single emerging country (China), which may contain a cultural bias and limit generalization of the findings to a broader group of people. Additional studies are required in different cultural contexts to ensure the validity of the results. Second, we collected the data from students of the vocational education teaching program only, which might cause bias in generalizing results to students from other disciplines. This study has only considered the campus learning environment as a mediating variable, while other mediating constructs, such as information technology skills, digital competencies, and student engagement, could also be practically explored. It would be interesting if future research used information technology skills and student engagement as mediator variables in the relationship between the entrepreneurial curriculum and campus learning environment.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Guangzhou University, China. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The reviewer FM declared a shared affiliation with the author AA to the handling editor at the time of review.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.950440/full#supplementary-material
References
Aghajani, H., and Abbasgholipour, M. (2012). Explanation of relationships between biographical characteristics and entrepreneurship spirit of students. Iran. J. Manag. Stud. 5, 63–78.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Proc. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Akhmetshin, E. M., Mueller, J. E., Yumashev, A. V., Kozachek, A. V., Prikhodko, A. N., and Safonova, E. E. (2019). Acquisition of entrepreneurial skills and competences: curriculum development and evaluation for higher education. J. Entrepreneurship Educ. 22, 1–12.
Arranz, N., Ubierna, F., Arroyabe, M. F., Perez, C., and Fdez de Arroyabe, J. (2017). The effect of curricular and extracurricular activities on university students’ entrepreneurial intention and competences. Stud. Higher Educ. 42, 1979–2008. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1130030
Ashraf, M. A., Iqbal, J., Arif, M. I., and Asghar, M. Z. (2022). Fostering ICT competencies in blended learning: role of curriculum content, material, and teaching strategies. Front. Psychol. 13:758016. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.758016
Azahari Ramli, D., Shabbir, M. S., Bakar, M. S. B., Mohd, M. N., Shariff, D., Yusof, M. S., et al. (2018). Mediating role of E-learning resources in developing entrepreneurial inclinations amongst undergraduate students at Universiti Utara Malaysia. Int. J. Eng. Technol. 7, 51–56. doi: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.7.20381
Barnes, R., and de Villiers Scheepers, M. J. (2018). Tackling uncertainty for journalism graduates: a model for teaching experiential entrepreneurship. J. Practice 12, 94–114. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2016.1266277
Beliaeva, T., Laskovaia, A., and Shirokova, G. (2017). Entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial intentions: a cross-cultural study of university students. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 11, 606–632. doi: 10.1504/EJIM.2017.086694
Belitski, M., and Heron, K. (2017). Expanding entrepreneurship education ecosystems. J. Manag. Dev. 36, 163–177. doi: 10.1108/JMD-06-2016-0121
Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 88:588. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588
Bischoff, K., Volkmann, C. K., and Audretsch, D. B. (2018). Stakeholder collaboration in entrepreneurship education: an analysis of the entrepreneurial ecosystems of European higher educational institutions. J. Technol. Transfer 43, 20–46. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9581-0
Bogatyreva, K., Edelman, L. F., Manolova, T. S., Osiyevskyy, O., and Shirokova, G. (2019). When do entrepreneurial intentions lead to actions? the role of national culture. J. Bus. Res. 96, 309–321. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.034
Brush, C. G. (2014). “Exploring the concept of an entrepreneurship education ecosystem,” in Proceedings of the Innovative Pathways for University Entrepreneurship in the 21st Century, (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited). doi: 10.1108/S1048-473620140000024000
Byun, C.-G., Sung, C. S., Park, J. Y., and Choi, D. S. (2018). A study on the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education programs in higher education institutions: a case study of Korean graduate programs. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complexity 4:26. doi: 10.3390/joitmc4030026
Chen, R., Iqbal, J., Liu, Y., Zhu, M., and Xie, Y. (2022). Impact of self-concept, self-imagination, and self-efficacy on english language learning outcomes among blended learning students during COVID-19. Front. Psychol. 13:784444. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.784444
Chen, S.-C., Hsiao, H.-C., Chang, J.-C., Chou, C.-M., Chen, C.-P., and Shen, C.-H. (2015). Can the entrepreneurship course improve the entrepreneurial intentions of students? Int. Entrepreneurship Manag. J. 11, 557–569. doi: 10.1007/s11365-013-0293-0
Choi, J.-I., and Markham, S. (2019). Creating a corporate entrepreneurial ecosystem: the case of entrepreneurship education in the rtp, USA. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complexity 5:62. doi: 10.3390/joitmc5030062
Collins, L., Hannon, P. D., and Smith, A. (2004). Enacting entrepreneurial intent: the gaps between student needs and higher education capability. Educ. Train. 46, 454–463. doi: 10.1108/00400910410569579
Davey, T. (2015). Entrepreneurship at Universities: Exploring the Factors Influencing the Development of Entrepreneurship at Universities. Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
De Massis, A., Kotlar, J., Wright, M., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2018). Sector-based Entrepreneurial Capabilities and the Promise of Sector Studies in Entrepreneurship. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. doi: 10.1177/1042258717740548
Dou, X., Zhu, X., Zhang, J. Q., and Wang, J. (2019). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education in China: a customer experience management perspective. J. Bus. Res. 103, 338–347. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.058
Esmi, K., Marzoughi, R., and Torkzadeh, J. (2015). Teaching learning methods of an entrepreneurship curriculum. J. Adv. Med. Educ. Prof. 3:172.
Fayolle, A., and Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: hysteresis and persistence. J. Small Bus. Manag. 53, 75–93. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12065
Fayolle, A. (ed.) (2018). “Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education,” in A research agenda for entrepreneurship education (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing). doi: 10.4337/9781786432919
GEM (2005). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, Scotland, 2005. Avalaible online at: https://www.gemconsortium.org/file/open?fileId=47452 (accessed August 24, 2022).
Gieure, C., del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, M., and Roig-Dobón, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial intentions in an international university environment. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 25, 1605–1620. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2018-0810
Grinevich, V., Huber, F., Karataş-Özkan, M., and Yavuz, Ç (2019). Green entrepreneurship in the sharing economy: utilising multiplicity of institutional logics. Small Bus. Econ. 52, 859–876. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9935-x
Gür, U., Oylumlu, I. S., and Kunday, Ö (2017). Critical assessment of entrepreneurial and innovative universities index of Turkey: future directions. Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change 123, 161–168. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.008
Hahn, D., Minola, T., Van Gils, A., and Huybrechts, J. (2017). Entrepreneurial education and learning at universities: exploring multilevel contingencies. Entrepreneurship Regional Dev. 29, 945–974. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2017.1376542
Hair, J. F. Jr., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., and Sarstedt, M. (2016). A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., and Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 31, 2–24. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
Hasan, S. M., Khan, E. A., and Nabi, M. N. U. (2017). Entrepreneurial education at university level and entrepreneurship development. Educ. Train. 59, 888–906. doi: 10.1108/ET-01-2016-0020
Heaton, S., Siegel, D. S., and Teece, D. J. (2019). Universities and innovation ecosystems: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Industrial Corp. Change 28, 921–939. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2021.126901
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T. K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D. W., et al. (2014). Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments on Rönkkö and Evermann (2013). Organ. Res. Methods 17, 182–209. doi: 10.1177/1094428114526928
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Heuer, A., and Kolvereid, L. (2014). Education in entrepreneurship and the theory of planned behaviour. Eur. J. Train. Dev. 38, 506–523. doi: 10.1108/EJTD-02-2013-0019
Huang, C.-H. (2021). Using PLS-SEM model to explore the influencing factors of learning satisfaction in blended learning. Educ. Sci. 11:249. doi: 10.3390/educsci11050249
Huang, Y., Liu, L., and An, L. (2020). Are the teachers and students satisfied: sustainable development mode of entrepreneurship education in Chinese universities? Front. Psychol. 11:1738. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01738
Ibrahim, N. A., and Lucky, E. O.-I. (2014). Relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial skills, environmental factor and entrepreneurial intention among Nigerian students in UUM. Entrepreneurship Innov. Manag. J. 2, 203–213.
Igbokwe-Ibeto, C. J., Agbodike, F. C., and Osakede, K. O. (2018). Entrepreneurial curriculum in African universities: a panacea to graduates’ unemployment if? Africa’s Public Service Delivery Perform. Rev. 6, 1–8. doi: 10.4102/apsdpr.v6i1.222
Iqbal, J., Asghar, A., and Asghar, M. Z. (2022a). Effect of despotic leadership on employee turnover intention: mediating toxic workplace environment and cognitive distraction in academic institutions. Behav. Sci. 12:125. doi: 10.3390/bs12050125
Iqbal, J., Yi, X., Ashraf, M. A., Chen, R., Ning, J., Perveen, S., et al. (2022b). How curriculum delivery translates into entrepreneurial skills: the mediating role of knowledge of information and communication technology. PLoS One 17:e0265880. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265880
Iwu, C. G., Opute, P. A., Nchu, R., Eresia-Eke, C., Tengeh, R. K., Jaiyeoba, O., et al. (2019). Entrepreneurship education, curriculum and lecturer-competency as antecedents of student entrepreneurial intention. International J. Manag. Educ. 19:100295. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2019.03.007
Jebbouri, A., Zhang, H., Imran, Z., Iqbal, J., and Bouchiba, N. (2022). Impact of destination image formation on tourist trust: mediating role of tourist satisfaction. Front. Psychol. 13:845538. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.845538
Katundu, M. A., and Gabagambi, D. M. (2016). Barriers to business start-up among Tanzanian university graduates: evidence from the University of Dar-es-salaam. Global Bus. Rev. 17, 16–37. doi: 10.1177/0972150915610667
Kazakeviciute, A., Urbone, R., and Petraite, M. (2016). Curriculum development for technology-based entrepreneurship education: a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural approach. Industry Higher Educ. 30, 202–214. doi: 10.1177/0950422216656050
Khorrami, M., Farhadian, H., and Abbasi, E. (2018). Determinant competencies for emerging educators’ entrepreneurial behavior in the institute of agricultural applied-scientific education. Iran. J. Global Entrepreneurship Res. 8:8. doi: 10.1186/s40497-018-0096-4
Kirby, D. A., Guerrero, M., and Urbano, D. (2011). Making universities more entrepreneurial: development of a model. Canadian J. Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Sci. de l’Administration 28, 302–316. doi: 10.1002/cjas.220
Kirkley, W. W. (2017). Cultivating entrepreneurial behaviour: entrepreneurship education in secondary schools. Asia Pacific J. Innov. Entrepreneurship. 11, 17–37. doi: 10.1108/APJIE-04-2017-018
Kummitha, R. K. R., and Majumdar, S. (2015). Dynamic curriculum development on social entrepreneurship-A case study of TISS. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 13, 260–267. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2015.05.005
Kwong, C., and Thompson, P. (2016). The when and why: student entrepreneurial aspirations. J. Small Bus. Manag. 54, 299–318. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.09.032
Kwong, C., Thompson, P., Cheung, C. W. M., and Manzoor, H. (2012). The role of environment in fostering conductive entrepreneurial learning: teaching the ‘Art’ of entrepreneurship in boot camps. J. General Manag. 38, 45–71. doi: 10.1177/030630701203800103
Lee, Y., Kreiser, P. M., Wrede, A. H., and Kogelen, S. (2018). University-based education and the formation of entrepreneurial capabilities. Entrepreneurship Educ. Pedagogy 1, 304–329. doi: 10.1177/2515127418788893
Lee, Y.-H., and Park, S.-H. (2014). A study on the success factors of venture entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship education. Asia-Pacific J. Bus. Venturing Entrepreneurship 9, 231–244. doi: 10.16972/apjbve.9.6.201412.231
Lin, S., and Xu, Z. (2017). The factors that influence the development of entrepreneurship education. Manag. Decision 55, 1351–1370. doi: 10.1108/MD-06-2016-0416
Lu, G., Song, Y., and Pan, B. (2021). How university entrepreneurship support affects college students’ entrepreneurial intentions: an empirical analysis from China. Sustainability 13:3224. doi: 10.3390/su13063224
Luo, L., Guo, M., Huang, J., and Yang, J. (2022). Research on the effect of an entrepreneurial environment on college students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy: the mediating effect of entrepreneurial competence and moderating effect of entrepreneurial education. Sustainability 14:6744. doi: 10.3390/su14116744
Man, W.-Y. T. (2001). Entrepreneurial Competencies and the Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in the Hong Kong Services Sector. Ph.D. thesis, Hong Kong: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Maritz, A., Nguyen, Q., and Bliemel, M. (2019). Boom or bust? embedding entrepreneurship in education in Australia. Educ. Train. 61, 737–755. doi: 10.1108/ET-02-2019-0037
Marques, C. S. E., Santos, G., Galvão, A., Mascarenhas, C., and Justino, E. (2018). Entrepreneurship education, gender and family background as antecedents on the entrepreneurial orientation of university students. Int. J. Innov. Sci. 10, 58–70. doi: 10.1108/IJIS-07-2017-0067
Mateos-Aparicio, G. (2011). Partial least squares (PLS) methods: origins, evolution, and application to social sciences. Commun. Statistics-Theory Methods 40, 2305–2317. doi: 10.1080/03610921003778225
Matlay, H., Maritz, A., Jones, C., and Shwetzer, C. (2015). The status of entrepreneurship education in Australian universities. Educ. Train. 57, 1020–1035. doi: 10.1108/ET-04-2015-0026
Maxwell, O. A., Stephen, I. A., Hezekiah, F. O., Paul, S. O., and Oyafunke-Omoniyi, C. (2018). Entrepreneurship curriculum contents and entrepreneurial development of university students in Nigeria. Int. J. Entrepreneurship 22, 1–9.
Miller, D. J., and Acs, Z. J. (2017). The campus as entrepreneurial ecosystem: the University of Chicago. Small Bus. Econ. 49, 75–95. doi: 10.1007/s11187-017-9868-4
Mittal, S., and Dhar, R. L. (2015). Transformational leadership and employee creativity. Manag. Decision 53, 894–910. doi: 10.1108/MD-07-2014-0464
Morris, M. H., Neumeyer, X., and Kuratko, D. F. (2015). A portfolio perspective on entrepreneurship and economic development. Small Bus. Econ. 45, 713–728. doi: 10.1007/s11187-015-9678-5
Morris, M. H., Shirokova, G., and Tsukanova, T. (2017). Student entrepreneurship and the university ecosystem: a multi-country empirical exploration. Eur. J. Int. Manag. 11, 65–85. doi: 10.1504/EJIM.2017.081251
Olokundun, A. M., Moses, C., Iyiola, O. O., Ibidunni, A. S., and Amaihian, A. B. (2017). Perceptions of students on entrepreneurship curriculum contents and openmindedness: implications for business idea generation of Nigerian University students. Acad. Entrepreneurship J. 23, 1–10.
Olutuase, S. O., Brijlal, P., and Yan, B. (2020). Model for stimulating entrepreneurial skills through entrepreneurship education in an African context. J. Small Bus. Entrepreneurship. 1–21. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2020.1786645
O’Reilly, N. M., Robbins, P., and Scanlan, J. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and the entrepreneurial university: a perspective on the knowledge transfer capabilities of universities. J. Small Bus. Entrepreneurship 31, 243–263. doi: 10.1080/08276331.2018.1490510
Pihie, L., and Bagheri, A. (2013). Students’ entrepreneurial regulation and intention to become an entrepreneur: a comparison between public and private universities. South African J. Bus. Manag. 44, 25–32. doi: 10.4102/sajbm.v44i4.166
Plumly, L. W. Jr., Marshall, L. L., Eastman, J., Iyer, R., Stanley, K. L., and Boatwright, J. (2008). Developing entrepreneurial competencies: a student business. J. Entrepreneurship Educ. 11:17.
Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 885, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Premand, P., Brodmann, S., Almeida, R., Grun, R., and Barouni, M. (2016). Entrepreneurship education and entry into self-employment among university graduates. World Dev. 77, 311–327. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.028
QAA (2012). Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education: Guidance for UK Higher Education Providers: QAA Gloucester. Gloucester: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
Rasmussen, E., and Borch, O. J. (2010). University capabilities in facilitating entrepreneurship: a longitudinal study of spin-off ventures at mid-range universities. Res. Policy 39, 602–612. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.002
Rasool, S. F., Samma, M., Wang, M., Zhao, Y., and Zhang, Y. (2019). How human resource management practices translate into sustainable organizational performance: the mediating role of product, process and knowledge innovation. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 12:1009. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S204662
Raza, S., Minai, M. S., Abrar ul Haq, M., and Zain, A. Y. M. (2018). Entrepreneurial network towards small firm performance through dynamic capabilities: the conceptual perspective. Acad. Entrepreneurship J. 24, 1–9.
Rudhumbu, N., Svotwa, D., Munyanyiwa, T., and Mutsau, M. (2016). Attitudes of students towards entrepreneurship education at two selected higher education institutions in Botswana: a critical analysis and reflection. Acad. J. Interdisciplinary Stud. 5, 83–83. doi: 10.5901/ajis.2016.v5n2p83
Saklofske, D. H., Austin, E. J., and Minski, P. S. (2003). Factor structure and validity of a trait emotional intelligence measure. Personal. Individual Differ. 34, 707–721. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00056-9
Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M., and Benneworth, P. (2019). Is the entrepreneurial university also regionally engaged? analysing the influence of university’s structural configuration on third mission performance. Technol. Forecasting Soc. Change 141, 206–218. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.017
Secundo, G., Del Vecchio, P., Schiuma, G., and Passiante, G. (2017). Activating entrepreneurial learning processes for transforming university students’ idea into entrepreneurial practices. Int. J. Entrepreneurial Behav. Res. 23, 465–485. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2015-0315
Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011). The implementation of entrepreneurship education through curriculum reform in Finnish comprehensive schools. J. Curriculum Stud. 43, 69–85. doi: 10.1080/00220270903544685
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., Morris, M. H., and Bogatyreva, K. (2017). Expertise, university infrastructure and approaches to new venture creation: assessing students who start businesses. Entrepreneurship Regional Dev. 29, 912–944. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2017.1376516
Tanveer, M., and Haq, I. U. (2021). Educational entrepreneurship policy challenges and recommendations for Pakistani universities. Acad. Strategic Manag. J. 20:15.
TLEMU-HKU (2018). Student Learning Experience Questionnaire (SLEQ). Available online at: http://tlem.hku.hk/sleq1718/ (accessed May 12, 2020).
Torres-Barreto, M. L., Castro Castaño, G. P., and Melgarejo, M. A. (2020). A learning model proposal focused on challenge-based learning. Adv. Eng. Educ. 8, 1–23. doi: 10.18260/3-1-1153-36023
Turner, T., and Gianiodis, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship unleashed: understanding entrepreneurial education outside of the business school. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56, 131–149. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12365
Valencia-Arias, A., Arango-Botero, D., and Sánchez-Torres, J. A. (2022). Promoting entrepreneurship based on university students’ perceptions of entrepreneurial attitude, university environment, entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial training. Higher Educ. Skills Work-Based Learn. 12, 328–345. doi: 10.1108/HESWBL-07-2020-0169
Winkler, C., Saltzman, E., and Yang, S. (2018). Improvement of practice in entrepreneurship education through action research: the case of coworking at a nonresidential college. Entrepreneurship Educ. Pedagogy 1, 139–165. doi: 10.1177/2515127418773410
Yi, G. (2020). From green entrepreneurial intentions to green entrepreneurial behaviors: the role of university entrepreneurial support and external institutional support. Int. Entrepreneurship Manag. J. 17, 963–979. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.817619
Keywords: entrepreneurial curriculum, entrepreneurial competencies, campus learning environment, measurement model, structural equation model, higher education
Citation: Iqbal J, Asghar MZ, Asghar A and Waqar Y (2022) Impact of entrepreneurial curriculum on entrepreneurial competencies among students: The mediating role of the campus learning environment in higher education. Front. Psychol. 13:950440. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.950440
Received: 22 May 2022; Accepted: 08 August 2022;
Published: 15 September 2022.
Edited by:
Lorenzo Ardito, Politecnico di Bari, ItalyReviewed by:
Farhat Munir, University of Management and Technology, Lahore, PakistanFatih Mutlu Özbilen, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Turkey
Majid Murad, Jiangsu University, China
Copyright © 2022 Iqbal, Asghar, Asghar and Waqar. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Muhammad Zaheer Asghar, zaheer.asghar@helsinki.fi