Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Entrepreneurship education theory
The major purpose of this study is rooted in the manifestations of entrepreneurial education. This research premises its aim and objectives on the ontological view that entrepreneurship can be taught. It aims to describe the effect of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial mindset, intentions and predictions for entrepreneurial activity/behaviour of the individual. It is thus imperative to discourse theory to explain and validate the ontological view. This sub-section will discourse entrepreneurship education theory that is best-aligned to its ontological view. The research does aim to focus on the value of entrepreneurship education as an agency for the desired personality, cognitive and behavioural processes of South African youth in Grades 10 to 12 and in the normative age group 15 to 18. In making the assertion that entrepreneurship education can be the agency, it is imperative that the research advocates relevant theory to support its assertion. Fayolle (2013, 23) correctly points out that support for the value of entrepreneurship education, which is disconnected from education and education psychology, is less theoretically grounded than research in entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is an integration of economics, sociology, management and psychology. The pedagogical perspective of entrepreneurship education is therefore primarily informed by educational approaches and linked to theory of teaching and learning (Kozlinska 2015: 32).
In the context of this research, the researcher found the cognitive educational theory to be suitable for discourse. Neck & Greene (2011, 56) suggest that cognitive theorists focus on the cognitive processes of individuals. For example, in processes of decision making to engage in entrepreneurial activity, the process would include psychosocial determinants such as attitudes towards autonomy, self-efficacy, locus of control, need for achievement and those would correlate with intentions and actual behaviour; as outlined in Theory of Planned Behaviour, Social Cognitive Theory, Social Learning Theory and Achievement Motivation Theory.
Cognitive theory further suggests that the psychosocial determinants provide the orientation towards entrepreneurship. In critically engaging with this view, the question arises as to why some individuals notice and pursue entrepreneurial activities more extensively than others. Baron (2006, 56) suggests one possible reason as what he terms the pattern-recognition perspective. According to Baron, frameworks that are constructed through prior knowledge, experience or background will determine how and why individuals connect the dots and become alert to particular opportunities. In this specific research, experience and/or prior knowledge are significant determinants of the participants’ responses to entrepreneurial intentions and/or predictions for entrepreneurial activity because all participants in both referred groups will be accessing entrepreneurship education programmes that will give them exposure to theoretical and experiential learning opportunities within the field of entrepreneurship. Krueger (2003, 32) added to the cognitive theory by collating what was known about entrepreneurship intention models, decision making, perception and other related human mind processes that cognitive theorists were focused on. Krueger correctly pointed out that whilst this linear cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship, which gained validity over the last 20 years to understand and describe how people think entrepreneurially, the last decade focused on understanding how individuals responded to non-linear approaches and more specifically, how education could be structured so as to equip students to manage their mental processes to think and enact processes linked with entrepreneurship (Baron 2006: 48). The latter thinking is highly relevant to this research which seeks to describe the effect of entrepreneurship education, which promotes skills, knowledge and competencies that the research asserts is lacking in the current provision of formal education. Through cognitive theory, education has been given more credit and power to influence people choosing entrepreneurship as a career path, to equip them with the required competences, and to develop from novices to experts (Krueger 2003: 34).
There has been widespread support for cognitive theory and the view that entrepreneurship can be taught. In addition, the view that the discipline could be taught to any student, also gained support, as well as the view that any student with access to the correct form of education could become a successful entrepreneur (Sarasvathy & Venkataraman 2011: 23). Studies by Fayolle (2013, 34), Kuratko (2005, 45), Kyro (2005, 20), Gibb (2005, 67), and Fayolle & Gailly (2008, 32) have all validated cognitive theory and have contributed to developing the pedagogical side of entrepreneurship based on existing knowledge of education and psychology.
The European Commission Union’s 2012 study concluded that there was a need to stimulate the entrepreneurial mind-set of young people and that education had an important role to play in achieving such stimulation. Garud & Giuliani (2013, 89) in their study found support for the ‘teachability’ of entrepreneurship and concluded that it provided a means to understanding the complex relationship between entrepreneurship education and opportunity identification. The researches cited above provided full support for the positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial activity. Research also exists that raised concerns about the elationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial activity and which had reservations accepting that such a positive relationship existed. Rideout & Gray (2013, 78) by citation of various other studies (Fayolle 2006, Lee & Wong 2006, Dainow 1974- 1984) all support a positive relationship between the two with reservations about the methodology of teaching entrepreneurship. Some of that reservation about methodology was further examined in terms of academic-focused entrepreneurship education versus training-focused entrepreneurship education (Martin, McNally & Kay 2012: 213, Van Vuuren 2014). Sanchez (2013, 190) concluded with a similar concern around teaching methodology and about the content of the entrepreneurship education programme for entrepreneurial success.
Methodological approach
The objective of this chapter is to outline the research methodology adopted in this study, which is to address the research problem that too few South African youth are currently exposed to entrepreneurship education to develop an entrepreneurial mind-set. Berglund (2007, 125) suggests that methodology comprises two things: the underlying assumptions and justification guiding the choice of methods, and the technical aspects of the methods themselves, including procedures and methods for analysing empirical material, dealing with ambiguities. Berglund further suggests that entrepreneurship research may stand to gain from a deepened understanding of issues such as the nature of human intentions and actions, and the relationship between scientific third-person and entrepreneurial first-person knowledge. This chapter will therefore discuss methodological ssumptions before describing the technical aspects of the methods used. Extant entrepreneurship studies, cited in Chapters 2 and 3 of this research, have been conducted thus far; the inconclusive findings of the relationship between exposure to entrepreneurship education and the development of an entrepreneurial mind-set encourages the researcher to conduct further investigations in different settings and methodologies relative to the samples and approaches adopted in those studies cited. Based on the review of the methodologies used in previous entrepreneurship research and the researcher’s own assumptions, the researcher was guided towards an identification of the appropriate approach for this study.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Context to this study
1.2. Background to this research
1.3. Importance of the study
1.4. Relevance of this study
1.5. Research problem
1.6. Research question
1.7. Research objectives
1.8. Research hypotheses
1.9. Key words, concepts and definitions
1.11. Research structure
1.12. Conclusion
Chapter 2: Literature review
2.1. Introduction
2.2. The risk of youth unemployment in South Africa
2.3. A new youth employment narrative in South Africa: from job seeker to job creator
2.4. The development of the entrepreneurial mind-set as a lever for youth entrepreneurship
2.5. Entrepreneurship education as a driver of the development of the entrepreneurial mind-set
2.6. Conclusion
Chapter 3: Theoretical perspectives
3.1. Introduction
3.2. The rationale for adopting the Theory of Planned Behaviour
3.3. The rationale for adopting the Social Cognitive Theory
3.4. The rationale for adopting the Social Learning Theory
3.5. The rationale for adopting Achievement Motivation Theory
3.6. Entrepreneurship education theory
3.7. Overview of the short and long entrepreneurship education programmes
3.8. Conclusion
Chapter 4: Research methodology
4.1. Introduction
4.2. Methodological approach
4.3. Research paradigms
4.4. Research strategy
4.5. Research method
4.6. Data analysis
4.7. Ethical considerations
4.8. Conclusion
Chapter 5: Data analysis
5.1. Introduction
5.2. Preliminary data examination
5.3. The rationale for the use of confirmatory factor analysis
5.4. Participants’ characteristics and profile
5.5. Hypotheses testing
Chapter 6: Findings and conclusions
6.1. Introduction
6.2. The rationale for the use of the structural equation model
6.3. Descriptive data
6.4. Findings per construct
6.5. Primary hypotheses testing by moderating variable of programme duration
6.6. Secondary hypotheses testing
6. 7. A revisit of the research objectives
6.8. Contributions of the study
6.9. Limitations of the research
6.10. Conclusion
Chapter 7: Recommendations
7.1. Introduction
7.2. Practical recommendations
7.3. Policy recommendations
7.4. Academic recommendations
7.5. Conclusion
References
Appendices
