Entrepreneurial potential in secondary school students. An exploratory evaluation

Original Research SAGE Open April-June 2024: 1–18 ÓThe Author(s) 2024 DOI: 10.1177/21582440241256780 journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo Entrepreneurial Potential in Secondary School Students. An Exploratory Evaluation Antonio Bernal-Guerrero 1 , Antonio Ramo ´nCa ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez 1 , Ana Marı ´aDomı ´nguez-Quintero 1 , and A ´ngela Martı ´n-Gutie ´rrez 1,2 Abstract Over the last decade, various entrepreneurial school practices have proliferated, including the creation of mini-companies. In the Spanish context, the Empresa Joven Europea (EJE) program has been the most widely employed educative program in this respect. Empresa Joven Europea is an educational program that proposes that secondary education students create and manage their own mini-businesses, thereby taking the legal form of a cooperative society and facilitating the acquisition of all basic educational skills through the cultivation of entrepreneurship. Nevertheless, there is still a gap between the theory and the practice of entrepreneurship education which, together with the conceptual expansion experienced in recent years, increases the need to assess the effectiveness of this type of programs. By means of an explanatory and cross-sectional study, we evaluated the impact of the program on the configuration of the entrepreneurial potential of the participating adolescents (N= 270). The analysis has been carried out utilizing PLS-SEM with SmartPLS software version 3.3.9 and SPSS version 25. None of the six hypotheses formulated have been confirmed, which means that the desired effects have not been achieved in any of the three variables under study: attitudes, knowledge, and entrepreneurial skills. Such results may be related to aspects of curricular organization, the type of experiences based on cooperatives, a certain structural and conceptual lack of definition of the pedagogical methodology used, and the development of skills linked to identity. Moreover, it is possible that, although it is not evident in the competencies acquired, the program has influenced the apperception of what it means to be an entrepreneur and of the creation of critical awareness, which is associated with entrepreneurial potential. Our study, in addition to opening suggestions for further research along the same lines, presents several implications related to administrative and organizational aspects, to the design of the different pedagogical elements of the programs and to the evaluative criterion adopted. Plain language summary We intend to evaluate the effectiveness of an entrepreneurship education program. Through an explanatory and crosssectional study, we evaluate the impact of an entrepreneurship education program in the configuration of the entrepreneurial potential of adolescents. The effect of the program has been small. Such results may be related to aspects of curricular organization, the type of experiences based on cooperatives, a certain structural and conceptual lack of definition of the pedagogical methodology used, and the development of skills linked to identity. Moreover, it is possible that, although it is not evident in the competencies acquired, the program has influenced the apperception of what it means to be an entrepreneur and the creation of critical awareness, associated with entrepreneurial potential. Our study, in addition to opening suggestions for further research along the same lines, presents several implications related to administrative and organizational aspects, to the design of the different pedagogical elements of the programs 1 Universidad de Sevilla, Spain 2 Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Spain Corresponding Author: Antonio Bernal-Guerrero, Facultad de Ciencias de la Educacio ´n, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Pirotecnia, 19, Sevilla 41013, Spain. Email: [email protected] Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). and to the evaluative criterion adopted. Contextual variables related to teaching and learning styles have not been considered. Nor have the opinions of the participating teachers and students been considered. The findings obtained are limited to the Spanish (European) context. We need to conduct research that overcomes these limitations. Keywords entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship education program, effectiveness of entrepreneurship education, secondary education. Introduction There is no doubt that entrepreneurship education constitutes a thriving international research field in which there is an incessant flow of diverse studies and research (Alshebami et al., 2022; Raza et al., 2021). However, there is a gap between academic contributions and achievements in the practice of entrepreneurship education (Crawford et al., 2022; Genus et al., 2021; Parisini, 2021; Seidl et al., 2021). It is even argued that, paradoxically, the traditional paradigm of entrepreneurship education harms precisely what it aspires to achieve: entrepreneurial competence and activity. Murray (2019) highlights a glaring disconnection between the theory and the practice of entrepreneurship education, through a review of the scientific literature and a qualitative study conducted on a sample of entrepreneurship trainers at the University of the West of Scotland. A new teacher professional development framework for teachers, such as that which has recently emerged in Europe (with good reception in Latin America and Asia), known as EntreCompEdu, can provide a refreshing stimulus for the identification of the competencies that educators need to foster entrepreneurship education in primary education, secondary education and vocational education (Grigg, 2021). It is a matter of training students in a lifelong entrepreneurial approach, based on the EntreComp European Framework of Entrepreneurial Competences. A large regional context, such as that of Europe, politically and administratively coordinated, would perhaps favor a more synergistic implementation of entrepreneurship education (Hudek & Sirec, 2019). The training materials, a veritable bank of teaching practices, available within EntreCompEdu, can contribute towards broadening the appeal of entrepreneurship education and can boost teachers’ professional development. However, their impact may not be as expected if they do not finally effect a conceptual reorientation of entrepreneurship education, capable of projecting training practices more closely linked to the roots of the entrepreneurial nature of the person and not merely linked the skills more clearly associated with the creation of companies and their operation. Entrepreneurship education is a high-priority line within the policies of the European Union and is not confined to the university environment, but most European countries have also incorporated it into the lower levels of the education system (EACEA-Eurydice, 2016). The growing need for socio-economic and educational measures capable of fostering an entrepreneurial culture makes it increasingly necessary to have a solid conceptualization of the construct in order to, consequently identify the foundation and real scope of entrepreneurship education. To this end, the aim is to attain a baseline of entrepreneurship in students and to evaluate the corresponding interventions at different administrative and educational levels (Oliver et al., 2015). Entrepreneurship education programs have proliferated in most countries in an effort to promote entrepreneurial culture at educational levels prior to university education. However, there are no consolidated advances in the theory and practice of entrepreneurship education, which may be due to any of a variety of causes. The analysis of the real impact of the applied programs, especially those most widespread, constitutes a research problem of unequivocal interest due to its repercussions regarding progress and innovation in this field of knowledge. It is therefore necessary to investigate the effectiveness of the training programs that have been developed in recent years. Our research is situated in this perspective and aims to contribute towards the clarification of the substantiation and development of entrepreneurship training strategies and towards the progressive reduction of the gap between the theory and the practice of entrepreneurship education. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development Competence, Potential, and Identity The value of entrepreneurship education linked to the international movement around the basic competencies approach has been widely claimed. According to Recommendation 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the key competence ‘‘sense of initiative and entrepreneurship’’ refers to the 2SAGE Open personal ability to transform ideas into action. Since then, the various guidelines generated aspire to develop competitiveness by boosting the appropriate economy to the knowledge society, while aiming to promote an inclusive cultural training capable of tackling the new social problems of the globalized world (European Commission, 2013). From this it is easy to deduce that entrepreneurial competence implies the ability to act autonomously, which ultimately links it to personal identity, to the ability to formulate personal projects and to be able to carry them out. Furthermore, competence can be formed to the extent that the person has certain dispositions that can be developed, that is, their entrepreneurial potential (Krueger, 2020), which, in turn, is enriched by the acquisition and improvement of their own competence, in a never-ending loop. Thus, potential and competence are closely related, and influence each other in a dynamic and fluid process. The entrepreneurial identity is the result of this intertwining. This progressively claimed construct confers stability and cohesion to entrepreneurial behavior (Donellon et al., 2014; Franklin & Dunkley, 2017; Gill & Larson, 2014; Gregori et al., 2014; Harmeling, 2011; Horst et al., 2020; Hytti & Heinonen, 2013; Ko & Kim, 2020; Leitch & Harrison, 2016; Mmbaga et al., 2020; Radu-Lefebvre et al., 2011; Werthes et al., 2018). Entrepreneurship education is aimed at boosting both the entrepreneurial competence and the entrepreneurial potential, although its goal is situated in the configuration of the entrepreneurial identity. Regarding the extent that entrepreneurial attitudes can represent the formation of entrepreneurial identity, the following hypothesis can be considered: Hypothesis 1 (H1): The mean value of the Entrepreneurial Attitudes variable and of each of its dimensions is higher in the subsequent subsample than in the subsample prior to the development of the program. A Recurrent Modality of Implementation of Entrepreneurship Education: Mini-Companies The development of the entrepreneurial spirit is encouraged at all levels of education. In Spain, since 2006, entrepreneur ship has been introduced as a basic competence in the educational system, and has been preserved within the various legislative changes that have taken place since then. The various Autonomous Communities of the country have striven to promote the development of the entrepreneurial spirit within the framework of their political and management competences. In this context, we have witnessed a considerable number of proposals of various kinds, all aiming to reconcile the entrepreneurial culture with the development of entrepreneurship. Initially, the promotion of entrepreneurship was focused on secondary education and vocational training, in an effort to cultivate the personal skills necessary for entrepreneurship and for setting up and managing businesses. More recently, the concern for entrepreneurship has also been extended to the primary school level, wherein its cross-cutting nature is emphasized in the curriculum. Identified as good practices, both the ‘‘design of business plans’’ and the ‘‘creation of mini-companies’’ are common training practices in entrepreneurship. For the most part, the integration of entrepreneurial competence in Spanish schools has been carried out through pedagogical experiences based on the creation and operation of mini-companies, whereby the creation of certain specific curricular subjects have also been contemplated, with less relevance so far. In this study, the focus is on an extended experience of mini-companies in the Spanish educational system: Empresa Joven Europea (EJE). This is an educational project designed by Valnalo ´n (2022), a public company under the Ministry of Employment, Industry and Tourism of the Government of Asturias. The purpose of EJE involves training students to attain entrepreneurial skills in lower secondary education (Compulsory Secondary Education) and in higher education (Vocational Training and Baccalaureate). Specifically, the educational objectives of EJE aim to improve entrepreneurial attitudes, enhance knowledge and basic skills to create and manage a mini-company, and promote cooperation between educational centers (La Palma Emprende, 2022). The EJE project is implemented during a school year, where students create and manage a mini-company, by taking the legal form of a cooperative society within their educational center. This program seeks to establish commercial relations between different mini-companies from other autonomous communities and countries so that they can exchange products with each other. The methodology of EJE is characterized by experiential-cooperative learning, and includes five development phases: (1) Creation of the cooperative and its corporate image (logo, statutes, internal organization, etc.); (2) Design and preparation of a catalog of products to be exchanged between the mini-companies; (3) Negotiation of orders, importation and exportation of products; (4) Development of a local market and commercialization of products; and (5) Analysis of the processes and results of the mini-company, payment of invoices, and dissolution of the cooperative society. The EJE project has been considered as an example of Good Practices according to the European Union (BEST procedure. Mini-companies in secondary education. DG Enterprise and Industry—European Commission, 2005) and as one of the most widely disseminated entrepreneurial education programs in Spain. Bernal-Guerrero et al. 3 By bearing in mind the value given to business knowledge and skills in the EJE program, 2 more hypotheses can be formulated: Hypothesis 2 (H2): The mean value of the Entrepreneurial Knowledge variable and each of its dimensions is higher in the subsequent subsample than in the subsample prior to the application of the program. Hypothesis 3 (H3): The mean value of the Entrepreneurial Skills variable and of each of its dimensions is higher in the subsequent subsample than in the subsample prior to the implementation of the program. Evaluation of Entrepreneurship Education Programs There is a direct relationship between the concern for promoting entrepreneurship in schools and the need to generate a new economic model capable of creating a business fabric. However, entrepreneurship is fundamentally linked to the capacity to create self-employment. Besides, entrepreneurship is not limited to the economic sphere, but has increasingly opened up to the personal and social spheres (Azqueta, 2019), thereby extending its effect to the formation of personalities with initiative and the ability to cooperate. In view of this demanding complexity, it is not only a matter of promoting entrepreneurship in education but also of evaluating its impact, the level of achievement attained, and the degree of reduction achieved between theory and practice. This is not an easy task, however: there is a notable gap between the political proposals for entrepreneurship education and their actual impact at non-university educational levels (Lackeus & Savetun, 2019), although the political discourse also presents weaknesses that require amendment (Dinning, 2019). This impact depends on the set of measures that can be adopted, at the different levels and areas involved, for the most suitable promotion of entrepreneurial culture in schools. In the Spanish context, studies on entrepreneurial education at the lower levels of the educational system are not abundant (Diego & Vega, 2015), as is the case of the international scene (Fayolle, 2018). There is hardly any research that examines the influence of entrepreneurship education programs on the entrepreneurial attitude, knowledge, and skills of students. In previous research, teachers acknowledge the difficulty regarding the evaluation processes in this type of program (Delpozzo & Szpunar, 2022; Morselli, 2019). A recent systematic review (Gonza ´lez- Tejerina & Vieira, 2021) on entrepreneurship education at the primary and secondary school levels, states that the educational practices developed in Spain remain in an incipient phase and are of little consolidation. Among the limitations found are the lack of teacher training, the lack of human and economic resources, and the application of ineffective methodologies. It is therefore necessary to analyze the impact of entrepreneurial educational experiences in secondary education (Compulsory Secondary Education), in order to ascertain whether this type of entrepreneurial education program is having a positive impact on the development of attitudes, skills and knowledge in students. While certain weaknesses and shortcomings of the program’s effect can be highlighted, the analysis and discussion of its results reveal the most relevant factors for the advancement of research on entrepreneurship education in the light of the new theoretical discourses and the current contexts of practice. In this respect, in an effort to find nuances that can improve the explanation of the real influence of the various components of entrepreneurial competence, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 4 (H4): The program has an effect on each of the weights of each of the dimensions that make up the Entrepreneurial Attitudes variable. Hypothesis 5 (H5): The program has an effect on each of the weights of each of the dimensions that make up the Entrepreneurial Knowledge variable. Hypothesis 6 (H6): The program has an effect on each of the weights of each of the dimensions that make up the Entrepreneurial Skills variable. Research Methodology Research Design The research has been implemented with a pretest and posttest design, with control and experimental groups, to contrast the hypotheses related to participation in the EJE program and its effect on the formative variables considered. This quantitative research is characterized as an explanatory, cross-sectional study with latent variables (Cuevas-Vargas et al., 2019). The development of the research was carried out using PLS-SEM with the software SmartPLS version 3.3.9 (Ringle et al., 2015) and SPSS version 25. The general objective of the research is to determine the effectiveness of the EJE entrepreneurial education program on the variables: attitudes, knowledge, and entrepreneurial skills in adolescents. To this end, firstly, the variables have been modeled as second-order constructs and the impact of the program has been assessed, whereby it is ascertained whether there are differences between the mean values of each of the variables and their dimensions before and after their implementation. Secondly, we have studied whether there is a change, subsequent to the implementation of the educational program, in the weight of each of the dimensions that configure the variables. In this way, for the first part of 4SAGE Open the study, the average values of each of the variables and their dimensions are compared, before and after the implementation of the program, through Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3. With these first three hypotheses, we specify that the mean values should be higher in the subsequent subsample than in the previous subsample, through a unilateral contrast in an attempt to confirm whether the effect is positive or not. Likewise, for the second part of the study, we assess whether the weight of each of the dimensions in the formation of the three variables suffers any modification after the application of the program, with Hypotheses H4, H5, and H6. With these last three hypotheses, we check whether the weights of each dimension in the formation of the global variable undergo any modification. This contrast is bilateral in that no specification is given regarding whether the variation is positive or negative. Sample Design and Data Collection The sample configuration was created by means of stratified probability sampling. There were two selection criteria: (1) Territorial Statistical Units (NUTS) 1 and 2 comprising Andalusia (South), Community of Madrid (Center), Community of Valencia (East), Castile-Leo ´n (Center) and La Rioja (Northwest); and (2) Educational centers that taught the EJE entrepreneurial education program and were willing to participate in this study. According to data from the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training for the 2021 to 2022 academic year, the total population in lower secondary education in Spain was composed of 2,039,599 enrolled students. The scales were released in the months of January and June of the 2021–2022 academic year. The Ethics Committee of Andalusia-Spain approved this research with the following code: (C.P. ABG21-C.I.0851-N-21). On applying these two criteria and hence eliminating 25 invalid surveys, the sample consisted of a total of 540 observations, 270 of which were taken prior to the training program and the other 270 after the training program. A priori, it remained unknown whether the variables included in the model followed a normal distribution. If we assume that the variables do indeed follow a normal distribution and for a confidence level of 95%, then by taking the variability of the population with a value equal to 0.5, and a maximum error of 5% the minimum sample size required would be 384 surveys. However, according to Green (1991), for a structural equation model estimated using SmartPLS, and for an 80% confidence level and a 5% error level for a maximum of five predictors the minimum sampling size required for the measurement of the medium-sized effects between the variables would be 91 surveys. Given that the sample size exceeded 384 and 91 surveys, the sample size was therefore acceptable for the purposes of this study. The profile of the respondents is outlined in Table 1. Measurement of Variables Scales previously defined and verified in the scientific literature on the subject were utilized to measure the variables. All the variables are higher order (HOC), measured through different lower-order dimensions (LOC), and modeled as a type-B composite. According to Bollen and Ting (2000) and Gudergan et al. (2008), a confirmatory tetrad analysis was performed that confirmed this choice. Entrepreneurial Attitudes (AE). Attitudes were measured using the ATE scale, proposed by Athayde (2009), and adapted to the Spanish environment (ATE-S) by Bernal- Guerrero et al. (2021). The scale measures entrepreneurial potential in adolescents. This variable comprises of five dimensions: creativity, personal control, achievement orientation, leadership, and problem-solving intuition. According to the ATE-S test, these dimensions were measured with a 5-point Likert-type response scale, ranging from completely disagree to completely agree. Entrepreneurial Knowledge (CE). The BBKS scale (Bernal-Guerrero et al., 2020) was employed to measure this variable. This scale measures the basic business knowledge of secondary school students. This variable is made up of three dimensions: knowledge in business Table 1. Respondent Demographics. NPercentage Gender 1 144 53.33 2 126 46.67 Age 12 24 8.89 13 61 22.59 14 68 25.19 15 59 21.85 16 36 13.33 17 17 6.30 18 5 1.85 Autonomous community 1 77 28.52 3 72 26.67 4 52 19.26 5 61 22.59 6 8 2.96 Source. Authors’ own contribution from results obtained with SmartPLS 3.3.9 (Ringle et al., 2015). Note. Gender: 1 = Female and 2 = Male. Autonomous community: 1. Andalusia, 2. Madrid, 3. Community of Valencia, 4. Castile-Leo ´n, 5. Castile-La Mancha, and 6. La Rioja. Bernal-Guerrero et al. 5 management, legal knowledge, and strategic knowledge. According to the BBKS application instructions, these dimensions were measured with Likert-type response options ranging from worked and learned to not worked. Entrepreneurial Skills (HE). This variable was measured with the BSEC scale (Ca ´rdenas-Gutie ´rrez et al., 2021), which measures basic entrepreneurial competencies, through three dimensions: operations and marketing competencies, competencies in socio-business, and legal organization and economic-financial competencies. As suggested for the use of the BSEC scale, a Likert scale was used with a range from not at all to a lot. Data Analysis Method Our analysis consists of three parts. In the first part, we model each of the variables as second-order constructs, each consisting of a set of lower-order dimensions. This modeling allows us to obtain the aggregate values for each of the higher variables and for each of their dimensions. In the second part, with the aim of assessing the impact of a training program on the variables considered, we analyze whether there are significant differences between the mean values of each of the variables and of each of their dimensions, by considering the subsamples taken before and after the implementation of the educational program. In the third part, the ordinary least squares linear regression technique is employed to estimate each of the variables in terms of their dimensions. We also included in these linear regressions a dichotomous variable that encompasses whether the observation corresponds to the subsample before or after the implementation of the training program. The analysis of the significance of the coefficients enables us to evaluate the impact of the program on each of the dimensions of the three variables considered. Partial Least Squares (PLS) was utilized to estimate the weights of each of the items in the formation of each of the dimensions and the weight of each of these items in the formation of the higher variables. It also enables to contrast the significance of these values to be contrasted in each of the models. The choice of the PLS methodology (Rolda ´n&Sa ´nchez-Franco, 2012) is due to the following reasons: (i) the relatively small sample size (Hair et al., 2012); and (ii) the nature of the variables included in the model, which responds to a composite mode B. To conduct the analysis, SmartPLS version 3.3.9 software (Ringle et al., 2015) was used. The PLS methodology has enabled the three variables considered (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) to be analyzed by means of hierarchical component models (HCM). Furthermore, each of the second-order constructs (HOC) and each of the dimensions (LOC) were specified as type-B composite variables. For the measurement of HCMs in PLS-SEM, researchers mainly use of two approaches: the repeated-indicator approach and the two-stage approach. Sarstedt et al. (2019) show that the two-stage approach is superior to the repeated indicator approach. Moreover, according to Hair et al. (2018), the two-stage approach proves to be better if the researcher intends to assess the nature of the higherorder construct using a CTA-PLS analysis. In line with these arguments, our work uses the two-stage approach. In the first stage of this approach, all the LOC indicators are assigned to the HOC measurement model, so that the indicators are used twice, once for LOC and again for HOC. In this way, first-order latent variable (LOC) scores are estimated, and these scores become the indicators for HOCs in the second stage (Hair et al., 2018). In this second stage, the specific weights of each of the dimensions (LOC) in shaping the higher-order variables (HOCs) are estimated. The weights of each of the items involved in the formation of each of the LOCs and the weights of each of the dimensions in the formation of the HOC enable the values of these aggregate variables to be estimated for each of the items in the sample. Results Assessment of the Models Table 2 shows the estimation of the model for the Entrepreneurial Attitudes variable. It is observed that most of the items have significant weights at 99%. Only the third item of the Achievement Orientation dimension and the second item of the Leadership dimension are significant at 95% and 90% respectively. Furthermore, the items do not present multicollinearity problems since the Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) are all less than 3.3 (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Regarding the relationships of each of the dimensions (LOC) with the higher-order variable (HOC), it is notedthattheweightsofeachoftheLOCsareallsignificant at 99%. Regarding the fit of the model, the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) is computed as an approximate fit of the composite factor model (Henseler et al., 2016) and the results reveal that the SRMR model fits values of .075. Since these values are lower than .08, they can be considered as acceptable for PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2018). Table 3 shows the estimation of the model for the Entrepreneurial Knowledge variable. It can be seen that all the weights in each of the three dimensions are significant. Regarding the analysis of the possible existence of multicollinearity among the items, it is observed that this problem does not exist, since all the Variance Inflation 6SAGE Open Factors (VIFs) are less than 3.3. Regarding the relationships of each of the dimensions (LOC) with the higherorder variable (HOC), it can be observed that the weights of each of the LOCs are all significant. Regarding the analysis of the possible existence of multicollinearity between the dimensions, it is noted that the VIF corresponding to Legal Knowledge is at the limit (3.387), and the VIF of Strategic Knowledge is 3.789. Following the recommendations of Belsley (1991), we performed an advanced collinearity analysis, which showed that the condition index is less than 30, which allows us to conclude that there are no multicollinearity problems between the dimensions (LOCs) of the Knowledge variable. Regarding the fit of the model, the SRMR model fits values of .051. Since these values are lower than .08, they can be considered as acceptable for PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2018). Table 4 shows the model estimation for the Entrepreneurial Skills variable. It is observed that all the items involved in the formation of each of the dimensions have significant weights at 99% significance. Likewise, the items do not present multicollinearity problems, since all the VIFs are less than 3.3 (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2006). Regarding the relationships of each of the dimensions (LOC) with the higher-order variable (HOC), it can be observed that the weights of each of the LOCs are all significant. Concerning the study as to whether multicollinearity exits among the dimensions, it is noted that the VIFs associated with the three dimensions (LOCs) are slightly higher than 3.3. An advanced collinearity analysis allowed us to conclude that there are no multicollinearity problems among the dimensions of the Skills variable, since the Condition Index obtained is less than 30. Regarding the fit of the model, the SRMR Table 2. Model Assessment of Entrepreneurial Attitudes. First level (LOCs) Weights p-Value VIF Creativity I believe a good imagination helps me function better in school. .504*** .000 1.354 I like classes that make me develop my imagination. .107** .012 1.502 I think I show a lot of imagination in my schoolwork. .266*** .000 1.356 I enjoy classes where teachers do different things. .506*** .000 1.163 Personal control I believe my future professional success depends largely on what I do. .256*** .000 1.352 I am confident in my ability to succeed in my future career. .454*** .000 1.428 I believe it is important to plan for my future career. .233*** .000 1.279 I worry that I will not be successful in my future career. .180*** .000 1.117 I am as likely as anyone else to get a good job in the future. .320*** .000 1.303 Achievement orientation I work very hard to achieve success in my projects. .217*** .000 1.390 It is important to finish a project to the best of your ability .299*** .000 1.601 I am proud of my work this year. .108** .001 1.270 It is worth the effort to work hard on projects. .395*** .000 1.117 I feel great when a class project is done well. .319*** .000 1.657 Leadership I am good at motivating my classmates. .532*** .000 1.553 I am good at getting people to work in groups. .093*.099 1.568 I believe I can convince my classmates to agree on a plan. .228*** .000 1.382 I take responsibility for organizing my classmates when we work in groups. .482*** .000 1.162 Intuition I trust my own intuition to solve problems in class. .429*** .000 1.375 Making mistakes is a good way to learn. .364*** .000 1.204 I try to find different solutions to a problem before I give up. .385*** .000 1.197 My intuition helps me to solve problems as they come up. .230*** .000 1.389 Second level (HOC) Creativity !Entrepreneurial attitudes .238*** .000 1.985 Personal control !Entrepreneurial attitudes .251*** .000 2.561 Achievement orientation !Entrepreneurial attitudes .258*** .000 2.739 Leadership !Entrepreneurial attitudes .214*** .000 1.615 Intuition !Entrepreneurial attitudes .247*** .000 2.197 Model fit: SRMR = .075 Source. Authors’ own contribution from results obtained with SmartPLS 3.3.9 (Ringle et al., 2015). Note.***p\0.01; **p\0.05; *p\0.1. Bernal-Guerrero et al. 7 Table 3. Model Assessment of Entrepreneurial Knowledge. First level (LOCs) Weights p-Value VIF Knowledge of business management Benchmarking and SWOT techniques .139*** .000 1.612 The elements of an economic-financial plan .208*** .000 2.203 What is a company’s accounting? .477*** .000 2.334 The financial processes of a company .195*** .000 2.498 The components of a Corporate Social Responsibility plan .187*** .000 1.961 Legal knowledge Types of companies (cooperative, limited liability company, labor company...) .192*** .000 2.045 The minimum capital to start a company .215*** .000 2.691 The business responsibilities of the partners of a company .231*** .000 2.769 The process and formalities for the incorporation of a company .274*** .000 2.372 The organizational structure of a company (areas, management positions...) .262*** .000 2.415 Strategic knowledge The meaning of ‘‘business environment’’ .203*** .000 2.267 The concept of ‘‘business opportunities’’ .180*** .000 2.441 The meaning of the term ‘‘customer selection’’ .171*** .000 2.295 The characteristics of a potential customer .180*** .000 2.113 Advantages and disadvantages of existing products/services in the marketplace .172*** .000 1.716 The meaning and principles of the term ‘‘corporate social responsibility.’’ .357*** .000 1.690 Second level (HOC) Business management know. !Entrepreneurial knowledge .339*** .000 3.141 Legal know. !Entrepreneurial knowledge .373*** .000 3.387 Strategic know. !Entrepreneurial knowledge .361*** .000 3.749 Model fit: SRMR = .051 Source. Authors’ own contribution from results obtained with SmartPLS 3.3.9 (Ringle et al., 2015). Note.***p\0.01. Table 4. Model Assessment of Entrepreneurial Skills. First level (LOCs) Weights p-Value VIF Operations and marketing skills Designing a product/service for a company height .186*** .000 2.956 Planning and organizing the manufacturing of products/services in a company .271*** .000 2.992 Analyzing the characteristics of a product/service .209*** .000 2.934 Proper pricing of a product/service .256*** .000 3.624 Selling products and/or services .212*** .000 2.797 Socio-economic organization skills Incorporating a company and performing the formalities to carry out the activity .259*** .000 2.378 Designing the organization chart of a company .200*** .000 2.253 Choosing the most appropriate management model for a company .297*** .000 2.658 Organizing people according to the work they will be doing .418*** .000 1.769 Economic-financial skills Calculating the costs, profits, and revenues of a company. .593*** .000 1.997 Preparing the accounting book of a company .290*** .000 2.038 Preparing a profit-and-loss statement .245*** .000 2.262 Second level (HOC) Oper. mkt. skills !Entrepreneurial skills .346*** .000 4.236 Soc.-eco. org. skills !Entrepreneurial skills .340*** .000 4.504 Eco-fin. skills !Entrepreneurial skills .374*** .000 3.905 Model fit: SRMR = .042 Source. Authors’ own contribution from results obtained with SmartPLS 3.3.9 (Ringle et al., 2015). Note.***p\0.01. 8SAGE Open model fits values of .042, and hence it can be considered as acceptable for PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2018). Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Educational Program The modeling of each of the variables summarized in Tables 2 to 4 allows us to assess, for each element of the sample, the pre- and post-training program levels of each of the variables and of each of their dimensions. Table 5 shows the mean values of each dimension and of each variable for the two subsamples: the subsample before and the subsample after the training program. In order to assess whether the educational program has had an impact on any of the variables and/or on any of their dimensions, we have tested whether the differences observed are significant or not. The results are as follows in Table 6. In relation to the first hypothesis, the results in Table 6 indicate that significant differences are observed solely between the pre- and post-program means of the dimensions of Leadership (t= 4.240, p\.000) and Intuition (t= 1.990, p\.048), and between the means of the Entrepreneurial Attitudes variable (t= 2.334, p\.020). However, surprisingly, the significant differences observed lie in the opposite direction to that expected, that is, the values are higher in the pre-program subsample than in the post-program subsample, and hence H1 is rejected. With respect to the second hypothesis, the results in Table 6 indicate that there are no significant positive differences between the previous and subsequent values of the Entrepreneurial Knowledge variable or in its dimensions, and therefore H2 is also rejected. Concerning H3, the results show that there are no significant positive differences before and after the application of the educational program in the Business Skills variable and its dimensionality. These results in Table 6, referring to H1, H2, and H3, confirm that EJE has exerted no impact on entrepreneurial attitudes, knowledge, and skills, nor on any of the variables analyzed. By studying the effectiveness of the educational program in greater depth, the third part of our analysis estimates three multiple linear regressions via the ordinary least squares method. Each of these multiple linear regressions model each of the aggregate variables (HOCs) (AE, CE, and HE) in terms of each of their dimensions (LOCs). A dichotomous variable dhas also been introduced, which takes a value of 0 if the observation was taken prior to Table 5. Average Values of LOCs and HOCs. Variables and dimensions Average NSD Previous AE HOC 6.7284 270 0.8834 Subsequent AE HOC 6.5359 270 1.0575 Previous Creativity 5.4058 270 0.8981 Subsequent Creativity 5.3105 270 1.0719 Previous Personal control 6.0047 270 0.8917 Subsequent Personal control 5.9571 270 0.9930 Previous Achievement orientation 5.5706 270 0.8469 Subsequent Achievement orientation 5.4460 270 0.9892 Previous Leadership 5.0788 270 0.9678 Subsequent Leadership 4.6907 270 1.1523 Previous Intuition 5.6969 270 0.9102 Subsequent Intuition 5.5302 270 1.0466 Previous CE HOC 2.1121 270 0.7813 Subsequent CE HOC 2.1817 270 0.8345 Previous Management knowledge 1.8755 270 0.7425 Subsequent Management knowledge 1.9821 270 0.8064 Previous Legal knowledge 2.0256 270 0.8706 Subsequent Legal knowledge 2.0146 270 0.8222 Previous Strategic knowledge 2.0029 270 0.7574 Subsequent Strategic knowledge 2.1012 270 0.8419 Previous HE HOC 2.4235 270 1.0984 Subsequent HE HOC 2.4331 270 1.1250 Previous Oper. & mkt. skills 2.2359 270 1.1036 Subsequent Oper. & mkt. skills 2.2780 270 1.1042 Previous Soc.-eco. org. skills 2.3681 270 1.0712 Subsequent Soc.-eco. org. skills 2.3633 270 1.1198 Previous Eco-fin. skills 2.2806 270 1.1441 Subsequent Eco-fin. skills 2.2702 270 1.1255 Source. Authors’ own contribution from results obtained with SmartPLS 3.3.9 (Ringle et al., 2015). Bernal-Guerrero et al. 9 Revista Interuniversitaria de Investigacio ´n en Tecnologı´aEducativa, (12), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.6018/riite.520761 Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management,17(4), 263–282. Diego, V., & Vega, J. A. (2015). Entrepreneurship education in the Spanish educational system. Year 2015. Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport. Dinning, T. (2019). Articulating entrepreneurial competencies in the undergraduate curricular. Education and Training, 61(4), 432–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-09-2018-0197 Donellon, A., Ollila, S., & Williams Middleton, K. (2014). Constructing entrepreneurial identity in entrepreneurship education. International Journal of Management Education,12(1), 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.004 Dweck, C. S. (2007). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House. EACEA-Eurydice. (2016). Entrepreneurship education at school in Europe. Eurydice report. Publications Office of the European Union. European Commission. (2005). Best procedure project: ‘‘Minicompanies in Secondary Education’’. Final report of the expert group. European Commission Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry. European Commission. (2013). Relanzar el espı´ritu emprendedor en Europa, Plan de Accio ´n sobre Emprendimiento 2020. Comunicacio ´n de la Comisio ´n al Parlamento Europeo, al Consejo, al Comite ´Econo ´mico y Social Europeo y al Comite ´ de las Regiones [Relaunching Entrepreneurship in Europe, Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions]. COM (2012) 795 Final. Brussels, January 9, 2013. Fayolle, A. (Ed.) (2018). A research agenda for entrepreneurship education. Edward Elgar Publishing. Franklin, A., & Dunkley, R. (2017). Becoming a (green) identity entrepreneur: Learning to negotiate situated identities to nurture community environmental practice. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,49(7), 1500–1516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17699610 Genus, A., Iskandarova, M., & Brown, C. W. (2021). Institutional entrepreneurship and permaculture: A practice theory perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment,30(3), 1454–1467. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2708 Gibb, A. A. (2005). The future of entrepreneurship education. Determining the basis for coherent policy and practice. In P. Kyro & C. Carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross cultural university context (pp. 44–68.). University of Tampere Research Centre for Vocational and Professional Education. Gill, R., & Larson, G. S. (2014). Making the ideal (local) entrepreneur: Place and the regional development of high-tech entrepreneurial identity. Human Relations,67(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713496829 Gonza ´lez-Tejerina, S., & Vieira, M. J. (2021). La formacio ´nen emprendimiento en Educacio ´n Primaria y Secundaria: una revisio ´n sistema ´tica [Entrepreneurship training in primary and secondary education: A systematic review]. Revista Complutense de Educacio ´n,32(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.5209/rced. 68073 Green, S. B. (1991). How many subjects does it take to do a regression analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,26(3), 499–510. https://doi.org/ 10.1207/s15327906mbr26037 Gregori, P., Holzmann, P., & Schwarz, E. J. (2014). My future entrepreneurial self: Antecedents of entrepreneurial identity aspiration. Education and Training,63(7–8), 1175–1194. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2021-0059 Grigg, R. (2021). The role of practical assessment in the delivery of successful enterprise education. Education and Training,61(4), 413–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-10- 2018-0216 Gudergan, S. P., Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2008). Confirmatory tetrad analysis in PLS path modeling. Journal of Business Research,61(12), 1238–1249. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.012 Ha ¨gg, O., & Peltonen, K. (2014). Towards a conceptual understanding of entrepreneurial pedagogy. Yritta ¨jyyskasvatuksen aikakauskirja,1-2013(1), 21–44. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Gudergan, S. P. (2018). Advanced issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,40(3), 414–433. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0249903 Harmeling, S. S. (2011). Re-storying an entrepreneurial identity: Education, experience and self-narrative. Education and Training,53(8–9), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400 911111185053 Henry, H., Hytinkoski, P., & Kle ´n, T. (Eds.) (2017). Co-opera- tive studies in education curricula. New forms of learning and teaching. Ruralia Institute, University of Helsinki. Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Raand, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: Updated guidelines. Industrial Management & Data Systems,116(1), 2–20. Hisrich, R. D. & Peters, M. P. (2002). Entrepreneurship. McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Hitinkoski, P. (2016). Teachers’ experiences on student enterprises. In I. Aaltio & M. T. Eskelinen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship (pp. 955–959). Proceedings Paper ECIE. Hodges, N., Watchravesringkan, K., Yurchisin, J., Hegland, J., Karpova, E., Marcketti, S., & Yan, R. N. (2015). Assessing curriculum designed to foster students’ entrepreneurial knowledge and small business skills from a global perspective. Family & Consumer Sciences Research Journal,43(4), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/fcsr.12115 Horst, S. O., Jarventie-Thesleff, R., & Pe ´rez-Latre, F. J. (2020). Entrepreneurial identity development through digital media Journal of Media Business Studies,17(2), 87–112. https://doi. org/10-1080/16522354.2019.1689767 Hudek, I., & Sirec, K. (2019). Development of entrepreneurial potential through entrepreneurship education in the EU. 16 SAGE Open Ekonomska Misao I Praksa [Economic Thought and Practice], 28(1), 53–78. Hytti, V., & Heinonen, J. (2013). Heroic and humane entrepreneurs: Identity work in entrepreneurship education. Education and Training,55(8–9), 886–898. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ET-06-2013-0086 Istenic, S. P. (2021). How to raise an entrepreneur? Fostering entrepreneurship in Slovenian secondary education. Studia Ethnologica Croatica,33(1), 43–67. https://doi.org/10.17234/ SEC.33.2 Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Can business schools meet the challenge? Education and Training,46(8–9), 510–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410569632 Ko, E. J., & Kim, K. (2020). Connecting founder social identity with social entrepreneurial intentions. Social Enterprise Journal,16(4), 403–429. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-02- 2020-0012 Krueger, N. (2020). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs: 25 years on. Journal of the International Council for Small Business,1(1), 52–55. https://doi.org/10. 1080/26437015.2020.1714363 Lackeus, M., & Savetun, C. (2019). Assessing the Impact of Enterprise Education in Three Leading Swedish Compulsory Schools. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(Suppl. 1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12497 La Palma Emprende. (2022). Empresa Joven Europea (EJE). Retrieved May 25, 2022, from https://www.lapalmaemprende.es/empresa-joven-europea-eje/ Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (2016). Identity, identity formation and identity work in entrepreneurship: Conceptual developments and empirical applications. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,28(3–4), 177–190. https://doi. org/10.1080/08985626.2016.1155740 Lin ˜a ´n, F., Ceresia, F., & Bernal-Guerrero, A. (2018). Who intends to enroll in entrepreneurship education? Entrepreneurial self-identity as a precursor. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy,1(3), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244017745111 Mmbaga, N. A., Mathias, B. D., Williams, D. W., & Cardon, M. S. (2020). A review of and future agenda for research on identity in entrepreneurship. Connecting founder social identity with social entrepreneurial intentions. Social Enterprise Journal,35(6), 106049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2020.106049 Moberg, K. (2014). Two approaches to entrepreneurship education: The different effects of education for and through entrepreneurship at the lower secondary level. The International Journal of Management Education,12(3), 512–528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2014.05.002 Morselli, D. (2019). The assessment of entrepreneurial education. In D. Morcelli (Ed.), Laboratory for teacher training in entrepreneurship education (pp. 17–36). Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-02571-7 Muro, J. S., Cartagena, F. C., Lozoya, A. C., & Sa ´nchez, D. G. (2018). MOTIVA: Developing digital entrepreneurship contents for secondary schools. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martı´nez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), 11th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 5919–5925). Proceedings Paper ICERI. Murray, A. (2021). EntreCompEdu: A professional development framework for entrepreneurial education. Education and Training,63(7–8), 1058–1072. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ET-06-2020-0166 Oliver, A., Galiana, L., & Gutie ´rrez-Benet, M. (2015). Diagno ´stico y polı´ticas de promocio ´n del emprendimiento en estudiantes. Anales de Psicologı´a [Annals of Psychology],32(1), 183–189. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.32.1.186681 Otache, I., Umar, K., Audu, Y., & Onalo, U. (2021). The effects of entrepreneurship education on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. A longitudinal approach. Education and Training, 63(7–8), 967–991. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-01-2019-0005 Parisini, T. (2021). The theory-practice entrepreneurship gap. IEE Control Systems Magazine,41(6), 8–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/MCS.2021.3107741 Polirstok, S. (2017). Strategies to improve academic achievement in secondary school students: Perspectives on grit and mindset. SAGE Open,7(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2158244017745111 Radu-Lefebvre, M., Lefebvre, V., Crosina, E., & Hytti, U. (2021). Entrepreneurial identity: A review and research agenda. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,45(6), 1550–1590. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211013795 Rae, D. (2010). Universities and enterprise education: Responding to the challenges of the new era. Journal of Small Business & Enterprise Development,17(4), 591–606. Raza, M., Alyoussef, I., Dahri, A., Polyakova, A., Alshebami, A., & Thomran, M. (2021). Effectiveness of entrepreneurship quality education in higher educational institutions: A mediating effect of entrepreneurial training Management Science Letters,11(4), 1221–1230. https://doi.org/10.5267/j. msl.2020.11.016 Ricci, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial transversal skills and growth mindset: Educational research. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martı´nez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), 14th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (pp. 8791–8796). INTED Proceedings. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. Journal of Service Science and Management,10(3), 32–39. Rolda ´n, J. L., & Sa ´nchez-Franco, M. J. (2012). Variance-based structural equation modelling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. Raisinghani (Eds.), Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems (pp. 193– 221). IGI Global. Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Jr., Cheah, J. H., Becker, J. M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ),27(3), 197–211. Seidl, D., Ohlson, T., & Whittington, R. (2021). Restless practices as drivers of purposive institutional change. In M. Lounsbury, D. A. Anderson, & P. Spee. (Eds.), On practice and institution: Theorizing the interface (Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Vol. 70, pp. 187–207). https:// doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20200000070006 Soler-Domı ´nguez, A., Bayona-Cuallado, D., Granell-Miguel, E., & Ramos-Mezquita, J. (2017). Young business Bernal-Guerrero et al. 17 explorers: Fostering an entrepreneurial culture at different educational stages. In L. G. Chova, A. L. Martı ´nez, & I. C. Torres (Eds.), 10th Annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation (pp. 5861–5864). ICERI Proceedings. Valnalo ´n. (2022). Que ´es EJE. Retrieved May 30, 2022, from http://www.valnaloneduca.com/eje/cont/presentacion Werthes, D., Maner, R., & Brettel, M. (2018). Cultural and creative entrepreneurs: Understanding the role of entrepreneurial identity. Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,24(1), 290–314. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-07- 2016-0215 18 SAGE Open