Moderators of the effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial action

Abstract

PurposeThe role of entrepreneurship education in promoting entrepreneurial actions remains unclear. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the logic of different types of entrepreneurship education and the effect of learning characteristics in promoting entrepreneurial actions among student entrepreneurs in the higher education setting.Design/methodology/approachThe study employs a quantitative approach involving the use of survey data collected via an Internet tool. The constructs of variables are measured using previously tested scales. The data were analysed using partial least squares modelling because it can handle formative and reflective constructs in the same model and is capable of testing for moderation.FindingsThe findings illustrate that voluntary entrepreneurship education generates learning outcomes in terms of students' entrepreneurial actions, which is important because without action, a venture will never be launched. This is especially so if students show a deep learning orientation, while mastery motivation showed a significant and negative moderating effect. This is not the case for compulsory entrepreneurship education.Originality/valueEmbedded in construal level theory, this paper offers knowledge that can help to advance entrepreneurship education research (1) by uncovering the role of different types of entrepreneurship education interventions, (2) by considering students' entrepreneurial actions as the dependent variable and (3) by unravelling the role of students' learning characteristics in the efficacy of entrepreneurship education interventions. By doing this, the study addresses recent repeated calls for more fine-grained research focused on how university students learn in entrepreneurship in higher education and its effects.

Bridging the valley of death: examining university science parks' influence on revenue generation

“…On the one hand, this study reveals the specific mechanisms through which USPs size and incubation funding, as well as RI, interact to shape the commercialization of university research (Ripollés and Blesa, 2023). This finding extends the theoretical understanding of the determinants of revenue generation beyond individual sources of competitive advantage to encompass the broader institutional and regional context in which USPs operate (Thompson, 2003).…”

How does entrepreneurship education affect employability? Insights from UK higher education

“…Research on universities as central providers of EEthe "supply" side (B echard and Gr egoire, 2005) controlling the provision of entrepreneurship courses and modules (Bhatia and Levina, 2020) is less comprehensive. This is surprising because universities have limited control over the "demand" side represented by students (Beynon et al, 2014;Ripoll es and Blesa, 2023), industry and employers (Smith and Paton, 2011;Succi and Canovi, 2020), and governments, policymakers and accreditation bodies on local, regional, national and supranational levels (Henry, 2013;Thomassen et al, 2020;Wolf and Jenkins, 2018).…”

Unravelling open innovation determinants and firm performance relationships in CEE and SEE countries

“…This has become widely recognized and accepted in the business community, which has led researchers and policymakers within the last few decades, to further increase the interest in all forms and dimensions of knowledge (Pathirage et al, 2007). Levels of knowledge and absorptive capacity are very much related to employee competencies, which are related mainly to the level of education and experience; thus, organizations must preserve and develop skills (Attia et al, 2014;Ripoll es and Blesa, 2023), manage knowledge-sharing (Salehzadeh et al, 2017), increase the level of education (Bakan et al, 2011), etc. Firms nowadays also have understood that the generation of new knowledge is considered not only an internal process (Arora et al, 2001).…”