Review of Related Literature and Studies

In order to establish a comprehensive bac(ground for this study, a survey of related

literature and studies has been conducted and have drawn out some concepts, ideas and data a

bases in formulating approaches, formats, instruments and necessary information in the conduct

of the study.

1.The Global Presence of Entrepreneurship Education

The global presence of entrepreneurship education must be discussed in order to fully

understand the importance of entrepreneurship educations in institutions of higher learning.

Entrepreneurship is widely recognized in United States as approximately 5.6 million Americans

under age 34 are attempting to start their own business ventures (cited by Kuratko, 2005 from

Tulgan, 1999). Interestingly, it is found that one third of new entrepreneurs is younger than 30

years old, more than 60% of 18-29 years old youngster say they want to have their own business

ventures and almost 80% of entrepreneurs in the United States are between the ages 18 years old

and 34 years old (Kuratko, 2005 from Tulgan, 1999).

The increasing demand of entrepreneurship had driven the massive growth of

entrepreneurship education in United States. The first entrepreneurship course was introduced

and offered at Harvard University in 1947. Since then, more universities start to offer the

entrepreneurship course and numerous courses relate with entrepreneurial activities has been

introduced in United States. According to Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994), the major challenges

of entrepreneurship education is the appropriate curricula and training programs for teaching

entrepreneurship knowledge and skills (Garavan & O’Cinneide, 1994). This gives the rise to the

question “can the entrepreneurship be taught?” Experts in entrepreneurship education believe

that it can be taught and entrepreneurs are made, not born. Klein (2006) states that some of
entrepreneurship skills and knowledge can be taught and some cannot be. He mentions that the

increasing of recognition of entrepreneurship specialist and economist toward each other will

lead to more consistent approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship (Klein, 2006). Peter

Drucker, one of the world leading management thinker and leader of management education

state that, the entrepreneurial is not a magic or mysterious and it has nothing to do with genes.

Entrepreneurship is a discipline, and like any other discipline, it can be learned (Kuratko, 2004).

The entrepreneurship education in United States helps in motivating other countries around the

world to start the entrepreneurship education. United Kingdom focuses greatly on the building of

entrepreneurship in their society. Kirby found that most of the British universities have listed

business and entrepreneurial development as one of the four major strategies goals in their

universities (Adcroft et al., 2005). This shows that entrepreneurship education do have the

important impact on the economy and society to the country.The same phenomenon is happening

in Malaysia. During 1990, Malaysia started to invested effort to transform their economy from

agriculture based economy to knowledge based economy. The rise of knowledge based economy

is the main factor that increases the development of entrepreneurs in Malaysia (Cheng, Chan, &

Mahmood, 2009). The implementation of knowledge based economy has driven education

institution like colleges and universities to implement steps to contribute to the development of

entrepreneurial talent among young graduates. Thus the entrepreneurship education starts to be

introduced in many universities in Malaysia.

2. Entrepreneurship Education Program

As traditional business education fails to meet the changing needs of the environment,

entrepreneurship education that enhances entrepreneurial attitudes and abilities has increased in
the undergraduate and graduate schools of universities. While traditional business education

emphasizes the establishment and operation of large enterprises, the entrepreneurship programs

emphasizes creativity, imagination, proactiveness, and risk taking that can respond to an

uncertain environment [6]. Entrepreneurship education is a process in which all series of

education and training activities in the education system. It provides entrepreneurial behavior,

entrepreneurial knowledge, and the feasibility of business activities. Additionally,

entrepreneurship education attempts to encourage entrepreneurs to develop or start their own

business [22]. Entrepreneurship education provides opportunities for knowledge, education, and

training to those who are interested in job creation or small business development [23], learning

opportunities, organizing resources at risk, and building a business [24]. In other words,

entrepreneurship education focuses on the expertise used to discover and commercialize business

opportunities. A number of studies have been conducted to develop entrepreneurial courses and

to operate them effectively. Kourilsky [23] categorized the components of the entrepreneurship

curriculum into opportunity identification, resource allocation and input, and operational

organization creation. Opportunity recognition requires insights into market observation,

customer needs, and inventions and innovation. The distribution and input of resources includes

the willingness to take risks as well as the skills needed to protect external investments. The

creation of operating organizations includes financial, marketing, and management skills to

provide products or services. In addition, Harvard business school's entrepreneurship curriculum

focuses on three key concepts: opportunity assessment, resource acquisition, and business

growth and retention [25]. Jones and English [6] defined the curriculum goals of

entrepreneurship education as: first, learn how to recognize ideas and develop ideas. Second,

assess personal resources and financial status, investigate and evaluate the risks needed to get
started, learn business planning and resource procurement. Third, learn how to allocate

resources, use various marketing strategies, and build a business that manages money and

manpower. Moreover, Vesper and Gartner [13] analyzed the curriculum of entrepreneurship

education in the undergraduate and graduate schools where the curriculum was established.

Entrepreneurship programs are classified into academic courses, faculty publications, community

influence, graduate activities, incarnation, and public relations. And, the curriculum is divided

into entrepreneurship, small business management, consulting, business plan writing, and

venture finance. The study by Hahn and Ko [15] provided the differences the entrepreneurship

programs between United States and Korea dividing the curriculum of the graduate school of

entrepreneurship into six major categories. Those are introduction, entrepreneurship environment

analysis and entrepreneurship preparation, entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship management and

strategy. Lee and Kim [14] also classified entrepreneurship courses into six modules:

entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship mindset, entrepreneurship plan, management skill and

strategy, entrepreneurial issues for funding, entrepreneurial issues for growth and development,

and special entrepreneurship. They also evaluated the importance of the preference courses of

entrepreneurship programs by using the hierarchical analysis process. As a result, the course

titled Entrepreneurial Issues for Fund was derived as the most important course. This shows that

many people are interested in attracting investment for start-ups and think it is the most

important. According to the previous research, entrepreneurship education includes everything

from business plan development and to short workshops and seminars designed to address

particular dimensions of the topic.

3. K to 12 Curriculum and Entrepreneurship

The K - 12 Basic Education Program is the flagship program of the Department of Education in

its desires to offer a curriculum which is attuned to the 21st century. This is in the pursuance of

the reform thrusts of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda, a package of policy reforms

that seeks to systematically improve critical regulatory, institutional, structural, financial,

physical, cultural and information conditions effecting basic education provision access and

delivery on the ground. The department seeks to create basic education sector that’s capable of

attainting the country’s Education for all Objectives and the Millennium Development Goals by

the year 2015 and President Noynoy Aquino’s 10-point Basic Education Agenda by 2016. This

policy reforms are expected to introduce critical changes necessary to further accelerate,

broaden, deepen and sustain the department’s effort in improving the quality of basic education.

(Esther & Ethel, 2012) The K-12 education system is the public education system that most

people are familiar with today. Comprised of 13 grades, kindergarten through 12th, it refers to

the public school system in all of the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and parts of

Europe as well. It is difficult to pinpoint the exact history of education, as it has been occurring

in some form for centuries in all parts of the world. The K12 Program has been initiated by the

Aquino administration where students will have to undergo a new system of education. The

Enhanced K-12 Basic Education Program is a DepEd program that will improve the standard of

education and give more opportunities for graduating students. Last school year 2012, Philippine

education officially implemented the K12 curriculum. Everyone knows the country (in public

schools preferably) is drastically left behind in terms of curriculum adjustments. Grade 1 entrants

in SY 2012–2013 are the first batch to fully undergo the program, and current 1st year Junior

High School students (or Grade 7) are the first to undergo the enhanced secondary education

program. (Kynemarie, 2013) Nolledo (1992) Article XIV of the constitution which focused on
education in which section I states that “the state shall protect and promote the right of all

citizens to quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education

accessible to all”. The K – 12 Program “We are the last country in Asia and one of only three

countries in the world with a 10- year pre-university program” (SEAMEO, 2011) The

Department of Education has formally launched its K - 12 Program, which adds 2 years to basic

education in the country. This means that aside from kindergarten, 6 years of elementary, and 4

years of high school, students will have to undergo an additional 2 years of study in senior high

school. The Department of Education (DepEd) is currently implementing mothertongue based

multilingual education (MTB-MLE) as part of our K-12 reform. This is not a purely pedagogical

strategy for language but a learner-centered approach.

By using the language students are comfortable with, the MTB-MLE in the enhanced curriculum

helps them develop the language skills they need to learn the fundamentals of various subjects

from kindergarten to third grade, and to move seamlessly from home to school. Children clearly

learn best when we use the language they understand, especially in elementary education.

Additionally, prior to the launch of MTBMLE, studies had shown that language skills mastered

with the mother tongue can enable students to learn a second and subsequent language faster.

The program has the following twin objectives: To give every student as opportunity to receive

quality education based on an enhanced and decongested curriculum that is internationally

recognized and comparable; Develop a curriculum that is rational and focus on excellence;

Produce a pool of highly qualified and adequately trained teachers; Achieve high academic

standards, especially in Mathematics, Science and English at all levels; Produce graduates who

are globally competitive and whose credential are recognized internationally; To change public

perception that high school education is just a preparation for college; rather, it should allow one
to take advantage of opportunities for gainful career or employment and/or self-employment in a

rapidly changing and increasingly globalized environment; produce graduates who possess skills

and competencies that will allow them to be productive members of the society or pursue higher

education; through coordination between the academic and business sectors, to change industry

hiring practices into account the enhance skills and competencies of K - 12 graduates (DepEd,

2010). The goal of implementing the K - 12 Basic Education Program is to create a functional

basic system that will produce productive and responsible citizens equipped with the essential

learning and employment. This is in line with the agenda of the President Aquino of having

quality education as a long term solution to poverty. The K - 12 Education vision from the

Department of Education (DepEd, 2010) every graduate of the Enhanced K - 12 Basic Education

Program is an empowered individual who has learned through a program that is rooted on sound

principles and geared towards excellence.

Truly, the implementation of K - 12 program of the Department of Education is a great help to

every students. But, some which has a noble purpose for every Pilipino pupil or student. From

their own point of view or perspective this is another burden on the part of the students and

parents. It will add to the financial problem of the individual family, and the advantage of

implementing this program are for the people who wants to continue studying or work abroad

because the curriculum is almost parallel to another country. This is some of the problems that

this study is going to focus on and to hear the sentiments of the parents regarding the

implementation of K - 12 program (Jennilyn, 2013). One of the aims of the Department of

Education is to prepare the students to be globally competitive. To achieve this, educational

reforms of the government must also focus into the mastery of English as the second language.

Such attempt will greatly help to harness the productive capacity of the country’s human
resource base towards international competitiveness. Competitiveness may be gauged from

sociolinguistic competence of a person. Sociolinguistic competence is the ability to use language

appropriate to a given communicative context taking into account the roles of the participants,

the setting and the purpose of interaction. It is the ability to use and respond to language

appropriately, given the setting, the topic, and the relationships among the people

communicating, particularly the lingua franca of the educational society and community, in its

various contexts and dimensions relatively guarantees the teachers competitive advantage in the

complex society like the Philippines (Alatis, 2009). Education Secretary Armin A. Luistro

(2011) says the additional 2 years will help students decide what course they will take in college.

It will also help high school students to be given a chance to specialize in science and

technology, music and arts, agriculture, fisheries, sports, business entrepreneurship, and others.

K - 12 Program aims to make basic education sufficient enough so that anyone who graduates

can be gainfully employed and have a productive life. K –12 Program will look at the possibility

of specialized education such as a high school or community, which will focus on the arts or

agriculture. Bro. Armin said that the proposal will make high school graduates employable,

making tertiary education unnecessary to get a job. That proposal of Department of Education to

add two more years to basic education drew mixed reactions in the Senate. Senate President Juan

Ponce Enrile (2011) expressed support to the DepEd’s K - 12 Program as he agrees with the

proposal because the country needs to increase its competitiveness at the international level, he

said: We are underrated by other countries, our educational system. It is painful for others. But

for the country we have to do it. To implement the program, the DepEd has to work with

Congress to amend the existing law, Batas Pambansa 232 or the “Education Act of 1982,” which

states that the basic formal education is a 10-year program. Nartates (2011) conducted a study
about the Effects of Broken Homes among Early Teenagers to their Academic Performance this

studies cited by the researchers have also shown that the country’s education program is

equivalent to the 12-year education cycle followed abroad except that it is being completed in

only 10 years.

These researches analyze and study what will be the effects of the K - 12 Educational

Systems to the country, parents, and students. This study becomes related to my study in the

sense that it is concerned on the effects of K - 12 Program to the parents. The only difference is

that this study is focused on the effects of K - 12 Program to the students whose parents are

working abroad, and how it affects to their academic performance. Marston (2011) Conducted a

related study about the perception of students and parents involved in primary to secondary

school transition programs of different formats and complexities, based on both Australian and

international research, have been introduced in some schools to facilitate transition. The aims of

this research were to investigate and compare the perceptions of students, parents and teachers

involved in several of these programs and to examine the extent to which transition programs can

alleviate issues associated with transition between primary and secondary schools. Zellman

(2012) conducted a study about the implementation of the K - 12 Education Reform in Qatar’s

Schools, this study is a reform of education for a new era, because it views education as the key

to the nation's economic and social progress. This study, one of a number of RAND studies that

trace and document the reform process in Qatar, was designed to assess progress made in the

first years of the K - 12 Reform's Implementation in Qatar's schools and the perception of the

parents on the Implementation of the K - 12 Program. This study has a relation to the researchers

study because it also gets the perception of the parents on the K - 12 Implementation. Senate

Majority Floor Leader Vicente "Tito" Sotto (2011) explained why he opposed the proposal of the
Department of Education (DepEd) to amend the law on the country’s basic education to increase

the number of school years to 12 from the present 10-year program. "I oppose the addition of

two years to basic education. There is no clear benefit to adding two years to basic education,"

Sotto said in a privilege speech at the Senate. He added that the national budget can't even

provide sufficient funds to maintain the present number of years of basic education, but now the

DepEd wants to add more to it. According to him, adding two years to basic education will

further increase our budget deficit. We need quality education, not quantity of years in education.

We need more schools, not more years in school. The Philippines is the only country in the

world that still follows a 10–year basic education cycle. And so Last October 2010, President

Noynoy Aquino proposed the Kindergarten plus 12 on the K - 12 Program to catch up with the

rest of world having a 12–year basic education cycle. However, with all the issues on education

the country is still has, parents expressed their opinions on the President Aquino’s plan of

strengthening the Philippine education system through the K -12 Program. It is a must to hear the

parents’ opinions regarding the K - 12 Program as they are one of the stakeholders of schools

and respected parents of the students who are involved on loving and caring for the future of

their children. “The reality on the ground is that schools even have to divide their classes to

morning and afternoon sessions to accommodate more students… We need to modernize our

public school system management priority to expanding the cycle of our basic education

program”

4. Implementation of SHS Curriculum

The K to 12 program promises an enhanced curriculum developed to offer students

further education that serves their interests, equips them with specialized skills and knowledge

and makes them at par with their global counterparts. According to the Department of Education
(DepEd), graduates from SHS may have greater employment options, including opportunities for

entrepreneurial activities. Students are also expected to be better prepared for higher education,

with middle-level skills that can be further enhanced to improve job opportunities. The SHS

curriculum is developed to include some subjects from the College General Education

curriculum, thus allowing students to have a head start to tertiary education. It offers

standardized subjects to ensure that students receive comparable education and training.

Specialization in the two tracks is facilitated through subjects with special focus on every track

and strand. The curriculum offers three types of subjects. First, “Core” subjects are given to all

students regardless of chosen track and strand. Such subjects include Language, Humanities,

Mathematics, Science, Social Science, Philosophy, and PE and Health subjects. Students diverge

as they take “Applied Track” subjects, which are given to develop standard competencies among

students, albeit implemented in the context of chosen track and strand. Third, the “Specialized

Track” subjects, which also set students apart, cover different contents, developing different sets

of competencies among students.

In the FGDs, students expressed varied opinions about their SHS experience, which

covers their thoughts about the subjects they had taken, the implementation of SHS curriculum,

and effectiveness of the two-year program vis-à-vis its objectives. Most of the time, students

would assess importance of subjects depending on their relevance to the track and strand they

were enrolled. Aside from the specialized subjects, both the Academic and TVL students found

the following subjects to be very useful: Entrepreneurship, Oral Communication, and Work

Immersion. Students also tend to enjoy and excel in subjects that were related to their area of

specialization, especially in the case of most TVL students, who preferred subjects that enhance

their practical skills. This is the reason why they believed that Math and Science subjects may be
less relevant compared to the specialized subjects10. Interest of students, which may not be

limited only to their area of specialization, somehow influenced the extent of their appreciation

of the subject. On the other hand, there were also subjects which appeared to be challenging for

most of the students. Research, in particular, was the most difficult for many of the students. The

challenge came from the required rigor and time in finishing research outputs, working in

groups. Others also highlighted burden from research costs (e.g. computer and internet rental,

printing).

Despite challenges in the implementation of the new curriculum, students, in general, thought

that senior high school allowed them to be trained further in their chosen area of specialization.

Most of the students, apart from specialized knowledge and skills, have likewise developed soft

skills such as communication, people skills, critical thinking, positive attitude, teamwork and

work ethic. And although there were a few who felt that the additional two years of schooling

could already be spent for working, most still realized the value of SHS in their preparation for

tertiary education and in developing their competencies that could help should they decide to join

the workforce.

5. Entrepreneurship in Education

The two most frequent terms used in this field are enterprise education and

entrepreneurship education. The term enterprise education is primarily used in United Kingdom,

and has been defined as focusing more broadly on personal development, mindset, skills and

abilities, whereas the term entrepreneurship education has been defined to focus more on the

specific context of setting up a venture and becoming self-employed (QAA, 2012, Mahieu,

2006). In United States, the only term used is entrepreneurship education (Erkkilä, 2000). Some
researchers use the longer term enterprise and entrepreneurship education (See for example

Hannon, 2005), which is more clear but perhaps abit unpractical. Sometimes enterprise and

entrepreneurship education is discussed by using the term entrepreneurship education only,

which however opens up for misunderstanding. Erkkilä (2000) has proposed the unifying term

entrepreneurial education as encompassing both enterprise and entrepreneurship education. This

term will be used extensively in this report to avoid confusion. Further, the word “student” will

in this report be used for learners on all levels of education, rather than adding the word “pupil”

that some still use. In Northern and Eastern Europe some additional terms are used. In Sweden

and the Balkans the term entrepreneurial learning is often used as an equivalent to enterprise

education (See for example Leffler and Falk-Lundqvist, 2013, Heder et al., 2011). This

sometimes causes confusion, since it is the same term used in the research domain of

entrepreneurial learning, which is about studying how entrepreneurs learn outside of the

educational domain. Another set of terms used in Finland is internal entrepreneurship education

and external entrepreneurship education (See for example Seikkula-Leino et al., 2010). Internal

entrepreneurship education is a synonym to enterprise education, and external entrepreneurship

education is a synonym to entrepreneurship education. Adding to the confusion here is the fact

that internal entrepreneurship is sometimes used as a synonym to intrapreneurship, i.e. when

acting entrepreneurially in an established organization (See for example Burgelman, 1983).

Entrepreneurial education is often categorized into three approaches, see figure 1 (Johnson,

1988, Heinonen and Hytti, 2010, O'Connor, 2013). Teaching “about” entrepreneurship means a

content-laden and theoretical approach aiming to give a general understanding of the

phenomenon. It is the most common approach in higher education institutions (Mwasalwiba,

2010). Teaching “for” entrepreneurship means an occupationally oriented approach aiming at

giving budding entrepreneurs the requisite knowledge and skills. Teaching “through” means a

process based and often experiential approach where students go through an actual

entrepreneurial learning process (Kyrö, 2005).

This approach often leans on the wider definition of entrepreneurship, and can be

integrated into other subjects in general education, connecting entrepreneurial characteristics,

processes and experiences to the core subject. While the “about” and “for” approaches are

relevant primarily to a subset of students on secondary and higher levels of education, the

embedded approach of teaching “through” entrepreneurship can be relevant to all students and

on all levels of education (See for example Smith et al., 2006, Handscombe et al., 2008). Some

important challenges have however been identified when trying to embed entrepreneurship into

education this way, such as resource and time constraints, resistance from teachers, assessment

challenges and cost implications (Smith et al., 2006)

6. Entrepreneurship Education in the Philippines

Entrepreneurship and the Philippine Education System The Organization for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD) defined entrepreneurship comprising of three

components: Entrepreneurs, Entrepreneurial Activity and Entrepreneurship; thus: Entrepreneurs,

those persons (business owners) who seek to generate value, through the creation or expansion of

economic activity, by identifying and exploiting new products, processes or markets;

Entrepreneurial activity as the enterprising human action in pursuit of the generation of value,

through the creation or expansion of economic activity, by identifying and exploiting new

products, processes or markets; and Entrepreneurship is the phenomenon associated with

entrepreneurial activity.
 The Philippine education system has seen radical changes as the Commission on Higher

Education (CHED) implemented the K to 12 program in 2016. To better equip the Filipino

students with the needed business skills and competencies, curricular offerings were revised,

integrating several subjects to different programs, aimed at developing the students’

entrepreneurial mind and attributes of entrepreneurship. At the dawn of the ASEAN Economic

Integration, the ASEAN business world becomes an open arena for those who are equipped to

compete and survive; and this is where delivery of education system becomes crucial. The

Department of Education implemented the K to 12 program in 2016. The 10-year basic

education curriculum was redesigned to include an additional two-year senior high program

intended to teach and train the students technical-vocational skills which will make them readily

employable after they finish their 12th grade (Cruz, 2014). The economic growth of a country

depends on the economic activities of its entrepreneurs, entrepreneurs that all begin as young

individuals who got what it takes to transform almost anything into an opportunity and had

manifested entrepreneurship skills even while they were still students. But to adapt to changing

circumstances, honing these skills becomes imperative not only for parents but most especially to

the education system (Eraslan, 2011; Polat and Aktop, 2010; Erdoğmuş, 2000; Lall, 2011).

7. Effects of entrepreneurial education

The most common reason that researchers and experts promote entrepreneurial education

is that entrepreneurship is seen as a major engine for economic growth and job creation (Wong et

al., 2005). Entrepreneurial education is also frequently seen as a response to the increasingly

globalized, uncertain and complex world we live in, requiring all people and organizations in

society to be increasingly equipped with entrepreneurial competencies (Gibb, 2002). Besides the

common economic development and job creation related reasons to promote entrepreneurial
education, there is also a less common but increasing emphasis on the effects entrepreneurial

activities can have on students’ as well as employees’ perceived relevancy, engagement and

motivation in both education (Surlemont, 2007) and in work life (Amabile and Kramer, 2011).

Finally, the role entrepreneurship can play in taking on important societal challenges (Rae, 2010)

has positioned entrepreneurial education as a means to empowering people and organizations to

create social value for the public good (Volkmann et al., 2009, Austin et al., 2006). For an

overview of areas where entrepreneurial education is stated to have an impact The strong

emphasis on economic success and job creation has indeed propelled entrepreneurial education

to a prominent position on higher education level, but not as an integrated pedagogical approach

for all students on all levels. So far primary focus has been on elective courses and programs for

a few secondary education and university students already possessing some degree of

entrepreneurial passion and thus self-selecting into entrepreneurial education (Mwasalwiba,

2010). The emphasis on economic effects has so far hampered a widespread adoption of

entrepreneurial education in the remaining parts of the educational system. Instead it is often

viewed as a “dark threat” by teachers, stating that the “ugly face of capitalism” is now entering

educational institutions (Johannisson, 2010, p.92). The stated necessity of all people to become

more entrepreneurial due to globalization and increasing uncertainty on the market has spurred

significant activity on policy level, but has not yet transferred into wide adoption among teachers

on all levels of education.

A more viable starting point in education could be to perceive entrepreneurial education

as a means to achieve more interest, joy, engagement and creativity among students

(Johannisson, 2010, Lackéus, 2013). A few scholars have recently put forward the potential of

entrepreneurial education to spur increased perceived relevancy of subjects taught among

learners, increasing motivation and school engagement and alleviating problems of student

boredom and dropout (Deuchar, 2007, Surlemont, 2007, Mahieu, 2006, Nakkula et al., 2004,

Moberg, 2014a). This is however a very unusual approach so far in practice The booming

student interest in social entrepreneurship (Tracey and Phillips, 2007) is another unusual but

promising starting point for entrepreneurial education. Interest among young people to engage in

solving societal challenges is high around the world (Youniss et al., 2002). Here

entrepreneurship can be positioned as a tool for young people to attempt to act as societal

historymakers (Spinosa et al., 1999). If such an interest can be mobilized as part of curriculum, it

can propel deep learning and put theoretical knowledge to practical work in meaningful ways for

students. Corporations can also be asked to participate with their financial resources in such

endeavors.

8. Effectiveness of Entrepreneurship Education

Many researchers including Block and Stumpf (1992) and Curran and Stanworth (1989)

have identified the need for evaluating entrepreneurship education and training programs. In the

extant literature, there are numerous studies that attempt to measure the effectiveness of

entrepreneurship education and training. Yet, implementing an effective research design to

isolate the effects of different programs across universities is a monumental task. The vast

majority of studies that attempt to examine the link between entrepreneurship education and new

venture creation suffer from intrinsic procedural and methodological limitations (Curran and

Storey, 2002; Gorman and Hanlon, 1997).13 Longitudinal research designs, using control groups

to compare participants with individuals who did not have entrepreneurial educational

experience are needed to examine the lasting effects of entrepreneurship education and training

interventions.
 As Gorman and Hanlon (ibid.:71) asserted, “since the cumulative impact of repeated

exposure to education for entrepreneurship should be expected to have a much greater impact on

attitudes and propensity, a difficult but important challenge for researchers will be to measure the

overall effectiveness of these programs”. There is unequivocal consensus among researchers that

one of the primary economic measures of entrepreneurship program effectiveness is the number

of new businesses started (McMullan et al., 2001). The literature provides evidence of the

positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and the number of venture start-ups.

Individuals who have attended entrepreneurship courses have a higher tendency to start their

own businesses at some point in their career than those who attended other courses (Charney and

Libecap, 200014; McMullan and Gillin, 1998).15 Clouse (1990),16 Garnier and Gasse (1990)17,

and Garnier et al. (1991)18 provided additional evidence that participation in an entrepreneurship

program has a positive impact on one’s decision to start a new venture. In a similar vein, Price

and Monroe (1992)19 found that entrepreneurship training has a positive relationship with

venture growth and development. McMullan et al. (1985) measured venture creation activities of

students taking three or more new venture development courses at the MBA level of University

of Calgary and found a relatively high start-up rate among the graduates, i.e. 14% of the

graduates started businesses. Similarly, Brown et al. (1987) surveyed participants of an

entrepreneurship program called “Your Future in Business” that aims to address the education

needs of potential and existing entrepreneurs, and they concluded that a significant number of

new ventures were created by the graduates of the program. Furthermore, education and training

of entrepreneurs have been repeatedly cited as an effective way to reduce small business failure

(Carrier, 1999).
 The contribution of entrepreneurship education in society is well documented in the

literature. As noted by Galloway and Brown (2002), in addition to developing skills for business

start-up and ownership, entrepreneurship education makes a significant contribution in terms of

the quality of graduate start-ups, and it influences general attitudes to entrepreneurship in the

long term. In Galloway and Brown’s view, entrepreneurship education represents a positive

motivation in terms of promoting entrepreneurship as a respectable and valuable career option.

E.E inevitably influences the population’s attitudes towards entrepreneurship and assists in the

creation and maintenance of an enterprising culture. In the long run, it helps build a risk tolerant

and entrepreneurial society. Entrepreneurship courses also prepare participants for

intrapreneurial challenges in large corporations where skills such as creativity, innovation and

proactiveness are essential. As an integral component in the venture support system,

entrepreneurship education compliments incubators, science parks, and venture capital

operations in backing various actors of the entrepreneurial economy. These actors may use the

knowledge and know how acquired from the entrepreneurship courses to grow existing

businesses. In addition, these courses may also serve as entrepreneurial networking platforms for

the participants. Hence, the evaluation of the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education goes

beyond traditional business start-up measures.

9. Attitudes of Students towards Entrepreneurship

For Indonesia, Abduh (2012) found that the entrepreneurship education in the Bengkulu

University is growing overtime as more students want to become entrepreneurs and wish to take

the entrepreneurship education for their choice of study. Most of the knowledge provided in the

entrepreneurship education are important for students especially business plan, financial

planning and financial report. Students are more satisfied with the innovative teaching method
such as entrepreneurship lecturers, class discussion, individual and group task but not satisfied

with the traditional teaching method like self-directed learning and individual tasks in preparing

a business plan. Moreover, students have a high expectation to the abilities they learned through

entrepreneurship program. Majority of participants experienced difficulties in understanding the

entrepreneurship programs and the teaching methods among the lecturers are vary from different

faculty in term of materials and teaching methods. The findings show the importance of the

teaching methods and subject material for helping student in understanding the entrepreneurship

education programs. These teaching methods and subject materials need to be further improved

and develop new teaching methods in order to support students to understand the

entrepreneurship.

In the study of Cheng, Chan, and Mahmood (2009) about the effectiveness of

entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. They used the questionnaire as survey instrument to

collect the students’ perception of the effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education.

Respondents were selected from five different higher education institutions, 300 respondents

were selected to complete the self-administrated questionnaires and 90 respondents were selected

to complete the pilot questionnaires. The study shows that the effectiveness of entrepreneurship

education in Malaysia still remain low as there was still many different between students’ skills

expectations with their skills acquisitions. Moreover, the result shows that the level of

understanding on “what is entrepreneurship” still remain slow among the respondents in this

study. Cheng (2009) conclude that, educational institutions in Malaysia should review the

existing curriculum to find the problems that cause the ineffectiveness of the entrepreneurship

education. In the same times, the education institution should focus on design a better curriculum

to increase the effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education. Only with an effective

entrepreneurship education, then students will become a successful entrepreneurs that could face

the challenge in today’s global economy. Chan (2005) conducted a study of entrepreneurship

education in Australia. She used the Australian university website to obtain the data about the

undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in entrepreneurship education for thirty eight

universities in Australia. PEST analysis (Political, Economic, Social and Technological

environment) was used to analyze the entrepreneurship education in Australia. In the research,

Chan found that most of the entrepreneur programs and units offered by Australian Universities

were not different from other academic programs in terms of teaching delivery methods,

curricula, facilities, advertising and promotion.

The entrepreneurship education in Australia mainly study the theories and model on

marketing, finance, management, develop business plan and gaining access and insight from real

entrepreneurs. Solomon (2007) had carried a study to examine the entrepreneurship education in

United States. His study chooses the online questionnaires as the research instrument. The study

shows that the rapid growth of technologies has improve the study of entrepreneurship

educations. The online information helped the students to search the data at a faster rate and time

saving. The study also showed that the education institutions are shifting the teaching method

toward a more knowledge sharing ecology method such as guest speaker and group discussion.

However, a study in Singapore suggests that problem based-learning (PBL) approach could be an

effective approach for entrepreneurship education. In the study, Tan and Ng (2006) used the case

study method that monitored and documented the performance of a pioneer batch of students

who took up the entrepreneurship programs. During the discussion, they explored two issues in

the implementation problem-based learning (PBL) approach to entrepreneurship education which

are: i) how PBL emphasize the knowledge application over content acquisition and provide
knowledge to student during the entrepreneurial process and ii) how PBL reflect real-world

problems, facilitate more meaningful entrepreneurial-training. As the result, problem-based

learning (PBL) approaches able to emphasis the learning process through solving “real-world”

problems as well as the multi-solution approach. Problem-based learning (PBL) will help to

develop the critical thinking, ability to think cross-functionally and ambiguity tolerance inside

the students. These skills are important and desirable that required by entrepreneurs in order to

success their careers.

Student Perspective on Entrepreneurship Education

There is a continuing interest in the field of entrepreneurship education, and research in

this area has grown rapidly over the years. Despite the growth in entrepreneurship education and

training, there is little uniformity in the courses offered at all levels. Nonetheless, commentators

in the field emphasized that non-uniformity in the courses offered is not necessarily a bad

approach to program development as the key is to develop an effective mechanism that

systematically documents the effects of those courses. While the literature distinguished between

enterprise education and entrepreneurship education, there is a general agreement among

researchers that the ultimate aim of both types of education is to encourage independent business

creations. On the other hand, the literature indicates a consensus on the incompatibility of the

curriculum of a business school with that of an entrepreneurship program. Although there has

been much debate as to whether entrepreneurship can be taught, recent studies reported that both

the scientific (i.e. functional areas of business) and creative aspects of entrepreneurship can be

nurtured by entrepreneurship education. Empirical evidence indicate that entrepreneurship

education is positively related to the creative facets of entrepreneurship such as the individual’s

adeptness in creating opportunities and ability to perceive the desirability and feasibility of a
venture. In terms of the teaching methods employed in entrepreneurship education and training,

the learning approach has been touted as an effective path towards developing the

entrepreneurial spirit. Entrepreneurship educators should stress in the curriculum, the importance

of hands-on, active participation within a real life entrepreneurial environment, where

constructive feedback from an expert is provided. Evidence in the extant literature suggest that

not only does entrepreneurship education positively influences individuals’ propensity towards a

more entrepreneurial stance, attitudes towards entrepreneurship education was also found to be

positively related to new venture creation.

References

Adcroft et al., 2005. Preservice teachers’ attitudes toward children: Implications for teacher
education. The Educational Forum, 59, 312-318.

Bechard, J.P.; Toulouse, J.M. Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training
objectives in entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 1998, 13, 317–332.

Burgelman, R. A. 1983. Corporate entrepreneurship and strategic management: Insights from a

process study. Management science, 29, 1349-1364.
Cheng, Chan, & Mahmood, (2009). Making a differences: Teachers’ sense of efficiency and
students achievement.

Erkkilä, K. 2000. Entrepreneurial education: mapping the debates in the United States, the
United Kingdom and Finland, Abingdon, Taylor & Francis.

Garavan & O’cinneide (1994). GMA considering reinstating Castilian as official in the
Philippines, proyectos-saluda.org, retrieved 2009-01-15 (Translation from Castilian original)

Gottleib, E.; Ross, J.A. Made not born: HBS courses and entrepreneurial management. Harv.
Bus. Sch. Bull. 1997, 73, 41–45.

Hahn, J.H.; Ko, U.J. Comparative study of entrepreneurship programs on the graduate schools
of Korea and the Us. J. Vocat. Educ. Res. 2007, 26, 105–131.

Heder, E., Ljubic, M. & Nola, L. 2011. Entrepreneurial Learning - a Key Competence
Approach. Zagreb, Croatia: South East European Centre for Entrepreneurial Learning.

Heinonen, J. & Hytti, U. 2010. Back to basics: the role of teaching in developing the
entrepreneurial university. The International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 11,
283-292.

Jones, C.; English, J. A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Educ. Train.

2004, 46, 416–423”
QAA 2012. Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Guidance for UK higher education
providers. Gloucester, UK: The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Klein R.N (2006). Teacher Motivation and its Relation to burnout: Educational Administration
Quarterly, 20 (2), 109-132.

Kourilsky, M.L. Entrepreneurship Education: Opportunity in Search of Curriculum, Center

for Entrepreneurial Leadership; Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation: Kansas City, MO, USA,
1995.

Kuratko,L. (2005). Teacher self-evaluation tool kit. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Kyrö, P. 2008. A theoretical framework for teaching and learning entrepreneurship.

International Journal of Business and Globalisation, 2, 39-55.

Lee, I.H.; Kim, H.S. A study on the entrepreneurship curriculum development model to
systemize entrepreneurship education in entrepreneurial graduate school. Asia-Pac. J. Bus.
Ventur. Entrep. 2016, 11, 131–142.
 Leffler, E. & Falk-Lundqvist, Å. 2013. What about Students’ Right to the “Right” Education?
An Entrepreneurial Attitude to Teaching and Learning. International Perspectives on Education
and Society, 23, 191-208.

Leffler, E. 2012. Entrepreneurship in Schools and the Invisible of Gender: A Swedish Context.

Linan, F. Intention-Based Models of Entrepreneurship Education; University of Seville:

Seville, Spain, 2004

Mwasalwiba, E. S. 2010. Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching

methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52 20-47.

Mwasalwiba, E., Dahles, H. & Wakkee, I. 2012. Graduate Entrepreneurship in Tanzania:

Contextual Enablers and Hindrances. European Journal of Scientific Research, 76, 386-402.

O'Connor, A. 2013. A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting

government and economic purposes. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 546-563.

O'Connor, G. C. 2008. Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach.

Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 313-330.

Seikkula-Leino, J., Ruskovaara, E., Ikavalko, M., Mattila, J. & Rytkola, T. 2010. Promoting
entrepreneurship education: the role of the teacher? Education+ Training, 52, 117-127.

Smith, A. J., Collins, L. A. & Hannon, P. D. 2006. Embedding new entrepreneurship

programmes in UK higher education institutions: challenges and considerations. Education+
Training, 48, 555-567.

Vesper, K.H.; Gartner, W.B. Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. J. Bus.

Ventur. 1997, 12, 403–421.