Entrepreneurship education in Andalusia. An embedded approach

Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 113 ISSN 1989 - 9572 Entrepreneurship education in Andalusia. An embedded approach La educación emprendedora en Andalucía. Un enfoque integrado Francisco Liñán, José Fernández, Juan A. Martínez -Román, University of Seville, Spain Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 6 (2) http://www.ugr.es/~jett/index.php Fecha de recepción: 05 de junio de 2014 Fecha de revisión: 25 de 03 de 2015 Fecha de aceptación: 09 de julio de 2015 Liñán, F., Fernández, J. y Martínez-Román, J.A. (2015). Entrepreneurship education in Andalusia. An embedded approach. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 6(2), pp. 113–132. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 114 Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers, Vol. 6 (2) ISSN 1989 – 9572 http://www.ugr.es/~jett/index.php Entrepreneurship education in Andalusia. An embedded approach La educación emprendedora en Andalucía. Un enfoque integrado Francisco Liñán, [email protected] José Fernández, [email protected] Juan A. Martínez -Román, [email protected] University of Seville, Spain Abstract When evaluating the relevance of actions within the area of entrepreneurship education, the quite remarkable national and regional differences regarding entrepreneurial culture, entrepreneurial potential and, of course, the business structure, have to be taken into account. Based on these differences, there is a need to specifically design entrepreneurial education policies which take into account the strengths and weaknesses of the business structure of each region. This paper aims to identify the structural characteristics of the Andalusian entrepreneurial model in comparison with that of other Spanish regions. To do this, a database of over 1000 companies have been used coming from the Research Project (Ref. P09SEJ -4857) carried out by the "SMEs and economic development" research group (SEJ -128) of the University of Seville. This information will also be complemented with regional reports from the GEM project. From these two data sources, an eminently qualitative profile of the structural weaknesses of existing businesses and their entrepreneurs in Andalusia will be established. From this analysis of regional needs, we will raise our differential proposition for an embedded education towards entrepreneurship. It will identify and include the content and pedagogical techniques necessary to overcome these weaknesses of the regional business community. Resumen Al evaluar la pertinencia de las acciones en el ámbito de la educación empresarial, las notables diferencias nacionales y regionales con respecto a la cultura emprendedora, el potencial empresarial y, por supuesto, la estructura empresarial, han de ser tenidos en cuenta. Sobre la base de estas diferencias, hay una necesidad de diseñar políticas específicas de educación emprendedora que tengan en cuenta las fortalezas y debilidades de la estructura empresarial de cada región. Este trabajo tiene como objetivo identificar las características estructurales del modelo empresarial andaluz en comparación con el de otras regiones españolas. Para ello, se ha usado una base de datos de más de 1.000 empresas procedente del Proyecto de Investigación (Ref. P09SEJ -4857) llevado a cabo por el grupo de investigación "PYME y desarrollo económico” (SEJ -128) de la Universidad de Sevilla. Esta información también se complementará con los informes regionales del proyecto GEM. A partir de estas dos fuentes de datos, se establecerá un perfil eminentemente cualitativo de las debilidades estructurales de las empresas existentes en Andalucía y de sus empresarios. A partir de este análisis de las necesidades regionales, vamos a plantear nuestra propuesta diferencial para una educación emprendedora integrada. Se identificará e incluirá el contenido y las técnicas pedagógicas necesarias para superar estas debilidades de la comunidad empresarial regional. Keywords Entrepreneurship education; Business structure; Programme development; Andalusia Palabras clave Educación emprendedora; Estructura empresarial; Desarrollo de programa; Andalucía Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 115 1. Introduction Since the economic crisis of the seventies, entrepreneurs have received more and more attention as job creators, innovators, as promoting flexibility, productivity and economic growth (Acs & Audretsch, 1990; Spencer, Kirchhoff, & White, 2008; Wennekers & Thurik, 1999). They are increasingly being seen as ―heroes‖ (Allen & Lee, 1996), at least within the academic and policy-making communities. It is not strange, then, that so many attempts have been made to identify what makes entrepreneur. It is hoped that effective education initiatives may be implemented to develop these characteristics in the participants and thus help them become actual entrepreneurs (Liñán, Rodríguez-Cohard, & Rueda-Cantuche, 2011; Pittaway & Cope, 2007). Starting in the USA and expanding throughout the world, there has been unprecedented growth in entrepreneurship education (EE) programmes in higher education in the last decades (Fayolle, Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2006; Katz, 2003). This growth is due to an increasing recognition that university-based EE programmes provide a promising vehicle to support a range of potential entrepreneurial outcomes (Nabi & Liñán, 2011). These, for example, include enhanced student venture creation skills, knowledge and attitudes (Greene & Saridakis, 2008) and more substantively, graduate business start-ups, which contribute to economic growth and development (Bosma, Acs, Autio, Coduras, & Levie, 2008). Most programmes, however, tend to replicate what has already been done and has been successful in a different setting (notably the USA), without sufficient attention paid to the specific characteristics of the participants and the social setting (Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007; Zhao, Siebert, & Hills, 2005). The present study tries to contribute to overcoming this problem by describing the development process of an ―embedded entrepreneurship education programme‖. To do so, it has specifically adopted a process-view of entrepreneurship (Moroz & Hindle, 2012) stressing person-environment interaction in the development and implementation of entrepreneurial opportunities (Liñán, 2007). The region of Andalusia, in southern Spain, is characterized by lower per capita income, higher unemployment, and a weaker entrepreneurial structure, when compared with the rest of the country (Fernández-Serrano & Romero, 2013). Entrepreneurship has been called for to help overcome these deficiencies (Marchese & Potter, 2011). However, so far, measures adopted have not yielded the expected results, and the region still is seen as lacking a supportive entrepreneurial culture (Liñán, Urbano, & Guerrero, 2011). In this regard, entrepreneurship education has the potential to significantly alter the situation since its reach may be very wide, especially if implemented throughout the educational system (Kyrö, 2006). The great majority of entrepreneurship education initiatives in Andalusia, though, have been concentrated at the university level, and offered as electives (Marchese & Potter, 2011). In our experience, they tend to replicate standard business-plan courses as developed elsewhere and, therefore, lack adaptation and integration into the specific Andalusian environment (Liñán, Rodríguez-Cohard, et al., 2011). Therefore, in this paper, we seek to describe the origins, development, and results of an entrepreneurship education course that is firmly embedded in its environment; i.e., the region of Andalusia. After this introduction, some contributions about the entrepreneurial process and the role of EE are considered. Then, in section three, the characteristics of the entrepreneurial structure in Andalusia are analysed. Next, the development of an entrepreneurship education programme specifically adapted to address these needs is presented. The paper ends with a brief conclusion. 2. The role of education in the entrepreneurial process The literature has stressed different elements in their analysis of the entrepreneurial process. When this entrepreneurial process is carefully analysed (Moroz & Hindle, 2012; Shane, 2003), it Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 116 comes out that there are at least three kind of variables involved in any start-up: (a) the persons leading the project; (b) the environment in which it is embedded; and (c) the characteristics of the opportunity to be exploited. In the first place, Gartner’s (1985) individual and, to some extent, process dimensions concentrate on people and their actions. Bygrave (2003) considers the personal factor as one key element, as Timmons (1999) does. Finally, Katz and Gartner (1988) also highlight the relevance of the individual’s intention. Therefore, we think the individual’s mental decision to create the firm should be considered as a first element to be analysed. In our opinion, this personal intention is a previous element in the entrepreneurial process. Intention is a cognitive construct which captures the motivational factors influencing behaviours, and is described as the single best predictor of actual behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). However, intentions are difficult to analyse, and their link to actual performance also deserves close attention. As Shaver & Scott (1991: 28) point out, «most modern psychology subscribes to some version of the S-O-R [stimulus-organism-response] model, but all recognize that only the stimulus and the response can be observed directly. Any and all of the organismic variables (the various O states) must be inferred from the relationships observed between classes of stimuli and classes of responses». In its original formulation by Ajzen (1991), intention depends on the individual’s perceptions of three motivational elements: attraction towards the behaviour, social norms, and behavioural control. This model has been applied to firm creation with good results, becoming one of those ―organismic‖ variables that mediate between stimulus and response. In this paper, we will be considering the entrepreneurial intention model as a basic element in the entrepreneurial process. The environment in which the firm would be created may be considered as the second key element in the entrepreneurial process (Bygrave, 2003; W. B. Gartner, 1985). It is evident that potential entrepreneurs act within a specific milieu that influences their decisions and actions (Bird, 1989). The opportunities to be pursued will depend, at least partially, on the environmental characteristics. In this sense, ecological approaches have made extensive use of two concepts: munificence and carrying capacity (Specht, 1993). The first of these concepts is defined as the degree of resource abundance in that environment. This would be particularly relevant for more specific assets, such as highly-skilled labour force or advanced business services. In its broadest sense, therefore, munificence could be somewhat similar to Timmons’ (1999) ―resource‖ factor. Carrying capacity, in turn, refers to the number of organizations competing for the same resources or markets. There is some empirical evidence that these two factors do have an effect on start-up rates (Begley, Tan, & Schoch, 2005). The presence of entrepreneurial role models in that society is another environmental element that has been extensively highlighted in the literature. Role-models have been recognized in general as an important source of ―vicarious learning‖ (Bandura, 1986). In particular, with respect to entrepreneurship, there is strong empirical evidence relating entrepreneurial rolemodels to preference towards self-employment (Carsrud, Olm, & Eddy, 1987; Matthews & Moser, 1995; Scott & Twomey, 1988). A close personal contact with one or more of these rolemodels, if they are seen as successful entrepreneurs, would help potential founders to consider firm-creation as a visible, viable and respected career option for them (Davidsson, 1995; Kirby, 2003; Scherer, Brodzinsky, & Wiebe, 1991). Finally, we will consider the business opportunity as the third variable in the entrepreneurial process. In the literature, there is a considerable debate about whether opportunities are discovered or enacted (Alsos & Kaikkonen, 2004; DeTienne & Chandler, 2004). The former would imply they are objective potential businesses that are there waiting for someone to exploit them (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). The latter, on the other hand, would mean opportunities have to be built by combining personal knowledge, skills, experience, and so on (W.B. Gartner, Carter, & Hills, 2003). Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 117 As Alsos & Kaikkonen (2004) point out, these two contrasting views would be based on different ontological perspectives about the world. One of them sees it as consisting of objective facts, while the other considers it as made up of subjective perceptions and constructions. In this sense, opportunity recognition could be understood as the combination of both elements: firstly, objective resources, market needs and information; and secondly, the potential entrepreneur’s subjective abilities, skills and perceptions. This idea is presented in Figure 1. A balance between both extreme views is proposed by Shaver and Scott (1991). In this sense, Alsos & Kaikkonen (2004) consider that the opportunity-generation process may include both discovering and creating elements. From a similar point of view, Hills, Shrader, and Lumpkin (1999) see opportunity recognition as a creative process. Opportunities may be seen as varying along an axis where pure objective discovery and subjective creation represent the two opposite extremes. Thus, DeTienne & Chandler (2004), even though they consider that opportunities are discovered, see creativity as an essential element in opportunity identification. Likewise, Krueger (2000) understands the pursuing of opportunities as an intentional behaviour and, therefore, suggests that intention models be used to study the opportunity identification process. Finally, once the idea has been accepted and becomes an opportunity, it may be the basis for a new venture. This final stage could be the elaboration of the business plan. This elaboration stage would be a different element separated from the opportunity recognition, but as problems and impediments arise, it may be necessary to go back to earlier stages of the creative process and (partially) re-elaborate the opportunity (DeTienne & Chandler, 2004; Sarason, Dean, & Dillard, 2006). Figure 1. The entrepreneurial process Source: Elaborated from Singh, Hills, and Lumpkin (1999), Figure 1. Entrepreneurship education may act on the three basic elements of the entrepreneurial process, but to a different extent and with distinct instruments. Its major role will surely be played preparing the person for successfully attempting the start-up. In this sense, there have been numerous attempts to conceptualize entrepreneurship education. The simplest one identifies it with training for firm creation (McIntyre & Roche, 1999). On the other hand, wider conceptions are comprised of a number of objectives and of different stages that usually include action during the whole educational system (Ashmore, 1990). A similar approach, although not so wide, is supported by the European Commission (2003a). Environment Opportunity Entrepreneur New Venture Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 118 In our opinion, therefore, entrepreneurial intention models could serve as the basis for an operative definition of entrepreneurship education (Fayolle, Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc, 2007), since intention models seem to provide a very useful framework for analysis of the entrepreneurial process (Fayolle & Gailly, 2005; Kolvereid, 1996; Krueger, 2000). Besides, the following conception would be wide enough to embrace those mentioned above: «the whole set of education and training activities -within the educational system or notthat try to develop in the participants the intention to perform entrepreneurial behaviours, or some of the elements that affect that intention, such as entrepreneurial knowledge, desirability of the entrepreneurial activity, or its feasibility» (Liñán, 2007: 236). This includes the development of knowledge, capacities, attitudes and personal qualities identified with entrepreneurship. Specifically for those of working age, entrepreneurship education would seek the effective creation of enterprises and their subsequent dynamism. According to this view, it may be argued that stimulating entrepreneurship through education should consider the three elements of the process (Figure 1). In practice, however, it is very common for entrepreneurship education initiatives to concentrate on those participants that already have an entrepreneurial intention and have identified an opportunity (Liñán, 2007). Many of these people may attempt firm creation even if they do not take any course. Yet, they may be lacking detailed knowledge about their closer environment (where the firm would operate) and, most commonly, not know what specific steps should be taken to start a firm. In this situation, the training could be very useful and significantly increase the number of start-ups effectively attempted. This could be identified as ―start-up education‖, and it usually concentrates on the business-plan elaboration, carrying out visits to entrepreneurs and support bodies, or taking in local relevant guest speakers (Honig, 2004). The electives available at the University of Seville are of this kind. However, when substantially increasing the levels of entrepreneurial activity is a major concern, as it is the case in Spain or, more generally, in the European Union (European Commission, 2003b), a wider approach to entrepreneurship education should be used. The inclusion of some awareness contents within the training would be very important. It might be integrated within the same course, or as a separate one. This latter option has been adopted by some relevant initiatives outside the university, such as the Graduate Enterprise Programme in the United Kingdom (Brown, 1990) or the Entrepreneur-Service in Norway (Kalternborn, 1998). On the other hand, there is no need to limit the education programme to the start-up phase. It might be possible to implement initiatives to develop dynamic behaviours in the participants (Foley & Griffith, 1998). In this sense, Gibb (1987) pointed out the importance of training contents relating not only to the pre-start-up phase, but also to the post-creation stages. With respect to this, Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994b) highlight aspects such as ―managing growth‖ or ―continuous team building‖. Entrepreneurship is considered as a process where the entrepreneur interacts with his/her environment to identify an opportunity and, eventually, start a new venture. Educational interventions may act upon different elements of that process. Therefore, in Figure 2 we try to summarise the different kinds of training activities identified so far, and where they would exert their main effect. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 119 Figure 2. Role of entrepreneurship education in the entrepreneurial process Source: Liñán (2007, p. 241, Figure 13.4) According to Figure 2, development of the entrepreneurial intention could allegedly be considered as the first element to be addressed. In this sense, Kent (1990) indicated that the general opinion towards entrepreneurs is not very favourable. He was referring to the United States, but this is probably even truer in Europe (European Commission, 2003b). Transmitting the important role entrepreneurs play in economic growth and development would help improve participants’ valuation of entrepreneurship. Similarly, Fillion (1995) includes in the category of ―foundations of entrepreneurship‖ a series of courses that could be clearly considered as entrepreneurial awareness education. In particular, besides insisting on the importance of the entrepreneur in the economy, the following contents may be highlighted: transmitting the roles and aspects of entrepreneurship, together with the problems usually faced; identifying the abilities used by entrepreneurs, making clear that they may be developed and showing some techniques to do so; and making explicit the successive steps involved in both the start-up and the firm-development processes. Peterman and Kennedy (2003) found that participants not having much previous experience regarding entrepreneurship -and not specially positiveincreased their perceived feasibility and desirability more. Fayolle, Gailly and Lassas-Clerc (2007) and Cooper and Lucas (2007), also found a similar result: those with lower initial levels of intention increased them more than the rest. There would be a rationale, then, to try to reach all those that do not even consider this option. It may very well be the case that after participating in the programme they change their minds. In this sense, helping participants make their personal objectives explicit in the short and in the long run (their ―mission‖) and see how it may be compatible with entrepreneurship could be another very interesting exercise, which has already been tried out with good results (Brown, 1990; Fillion, 1995; Foley & Griffith, 1998; Garavan & O'Cinneide, 1994a). Contents described so far would have their main effect in affecting perceived desirability and, to a lesser extent, feasibility. However, it should be noted that all other possible contents depicted in Figure 2 would also affect intentions and their antecedents (Liñán, 2007). The difference, therefore, lies in their main purpose. For that reason, these contents described below should be considered as primarily pursuing the stated objective, but indirectly affecting the entrepreneurial intention of participants (Liñán, Rodríguez-Cohard, et al., 2011). Environment Opportunity Entrepreneur New Venture Dynamic Firm Dev. specific local knowledge, network contacts, local role models, etc. Developing creativity & opportunity recognition skills Developing intention & its antecedents Business Planning Dev. Dynamic Behaviours Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 120 To develop opportunity recognition abilities, Epstein (1996) identified four skills to enhance creativity. DeTienne and Chandler (2004) have adapted those skills into a training model named as SEEC (securing, expanding, exposing and challenging). They offer a detailed list of activities that could be used in an opportunity-recognition course. When they tested this model, results indicated that this training model led to the identification of more opportunities and more innovative opportunities. On the lower part of Figure 2, over the Environment/Opportunity/New Venture area, a set of measures has been included which are specifically addressed to increase the knowledge of the local business environment, developing network contacts and having the possibility to interact with local successful role models. The importance of developing local network contacts has been highlighted by a number of authors (Johannisson, 1991). However, it is possible to go further. Hartshorn and Parvin (1999) describe a training programme which includes mentoring of participants by local entrepreneurs. Each student is placed with an entrepreneur/mentor who considers the student as a kind of advisor, letting him/her take part in all business decisions made by the entrepreneur. This would be very important not only to get a closer and more accurate knowledge of what being an entrepreneur is, but also to introduce the prospective entrepreneur in the local business circles (Gibb, 1998). Similarly, Kent (1990) suggests the utility of using ―socialization‖ seminars for participants. Local entrepreneurs and relevant business community stakeholders are invited to participate as well. This gives participants the opportunity to know ―who is who‖ in the local business world, to establish important contacts, to solve specific doubts that they may have, and also to reinforcetheir motivation. At the Opportunity/New Venture link, business plans are a very well-known and widely used pedagogical methodology (Gorman, Hanlon, & King, 1997). They would not only provide an operationalization of the business opportunity (Lechner & Dowling, 1998), but also serve as a legitimization of the entrepreneur. They would produce «an aura of formality and conviction often required before an individual’s creation of a new organization will be taken seriously» (Honig, 2004: 260). Besides, it may reasonably be argued that increased specific knowledge and formalization of the business idea would also help increase perceived self-efficacy of the potential entrepreneur. However, some recent studies (Carrier, 2005) indicate that a course consisting only of the production of a business plan may have a negative effect on desirability. This result, if confirmed, would be strengthening the case for a wider entrepreneurship education programme, including some or all of the contents described in this section as a complement to the business planning. Finally, an additional element that could be also included in entrepreneurship education would refer to the development of dynamic behaviours once the firm is in operation. If these contents are integrated, we would be talking of ―education for entrepreneurial dynamism‖ or entrepreneurial quality (Santos & Liñán, 2007). Some examples that could be considered here have been described by Garavan and O’Cinneide (1994b), and they include teaching on how to manage growth and its implications for the entrepreneur’s time, the firm’s structure and functioning, financing requirements, and so on. Similarly, the need for the entrepreneurial team to be continuously re-built to adapt to new situations would also be included, together with motivation of human resources and leadership. 3. A revision of entrepreneurship in Andalusia The concept of ―entrepreneurship‖ may be applied broadly or in a narrow and focused way, depending on the context. Despite the definitional differences, it is commonly agreed that entrepreneurship is a driving force behind SMEs. Substantial entrepreneurial behaviour can Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 121 occur among existing entrepreneurs and existing firms, including longer established firms, and the systematisation of innovation and commercialisation within existing firms. Generally, entrepreneurship comprises two viewpoints (OECD, 1998): a) First, entrepreneurship may be defined as the capacity to create and develop new business ventures, with studies focusing on the process of creation of new firms. b) Second, entrepreneurship may refer to the process to develop economic activity by building risk-taking, creativity and/or innovation capabilities, within a new or an existing organization. Therefore, we can analyse these two dimensions of entrepreneurship: a quantitative dimension in reference to the number of firms and a qualitative dimension in reference to some entrepreneurial characteristics and behaviours. Entrepreneurship has been historically poor in Andalucía: deficiencies in entrepreneurial culture and entrepreneurial dynamism (birth, survival and expansion) are some major structural drawback in Andalucía (Faiña, Lopez-Rodriguez, Romero, Fernández-Serrano, & Montes-Solla, 2014). So, quantitative and qualitative entrepreneurship deficiencies can be observed in Andalusia. 3.1. Quantitative dimension of entrepreneurship This section will try to approach this dimension by observing two indicators on entrepreneurship: Business Density and Total Entrepreneurial Activity (TEA). As may be seen in Figure 3, the level of business density - measured as the number of businesses per 1,000 inhabitants - has increased both in Andalusia and the whole of Spain in the last two decades. Nevertheless, this density in Andalusia has been traditionally among the lowest within the Spanish regions. 56,9 60,1 61,4 62,1 62,7 64,1 64,3 64,8 65,9 68,1 69,5 71,0 73,8 74,1 71,8 70,0 68,9 67,7 45,1 47,1 47,9 48,7 49,2 51,3 51,9 53,3 54,8 57,4 59,1 61,0 63,5 63,7 61,4 59,6 58,4 57,1 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 SPAIN ANDALUSIA Figure 3. Business density (number of business per 1,000 inhabitants) Source: Elaborated from DIRCE, INE. Two clearly differentiated processes clearly emerge from Figure 3 (Romero & FernándezSerrano, 2013): • First, an incomplete process of caching-up: the gap between the Andalusian and national averages decreased by more than five percentage points over the whole period 1995-2012: from 79.3 percent to 84.3 percent of the national average. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 128 • Activity 5: The profile of an entrepreneur. The students will individually interview an entrepreneur - following the script set out - and will write up a detailed report about the entrepreneur’s experience. This report will be handed in via the platform one week before being discussed in class. • Activity 6: Business model. Each group will develop a business model from the idea selected in Activity 4. The business models will be handed in via the platform before being presented in class. In this way the teacher can study it first. Table 3. Didactic plan Session Lecturer Subject Activities 1 Professor 1 Presentation Activities 1, 2 & 5 start 2 Professor 1 Concept of entrepreneur 3 Professor 1 Entrepreneurship and economic development 4 Professor 1 5 Professor 1 Entrepreneurial process and stages Activs. 1 & 2 handed in 6 Professor 1 Values and attitudes Activ. 2 class discussion 7 Professor 2 Interpersonal skills Activ. 4 starts Activ. 3 done in class 8 Professor 2 Opportunity Recognition and evaluation Activ. 4 class discussion Activ. 5 handed in 9 Professor 1 Profile of the entrepreneur Activ. 5 class discussion 10 Professor 3 Creativity and innovation 11 Professor 3 12 Professor 3 Business model Activ. 6 starts 13 Professor 3 14 Professor 3 Activ. 6 presented in class This methodology has offered very satisfactory results along the different years, as shown in Figure 4. As may be seen, students’ evaluations have always been highly positive, with the average over 80% every year. This compares substantially better to most other module in the Master and is a reflection, we think, of the interest and didactic approached followed in this subject. Figure 4. Global acquisition of competencies 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 85,8% 94,5% 86,3% 82,2% Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 129 As can be seen in the figure, the global progress has been considerable, surpassing 80% in all the examinations. With respect to the decrease in the last year, there was a change of programming in the Master which meant that the students’ work placements in schools coincided with the teaching of this subject during part of the course. This was detrimental to the teaching of this and other subjects and to off-campus activities and caused the readjustment of the changes for the following academic year. 5. Conclusions In this paper, an entrepreneurship education course has been presented. The course structure and contents are based on the identification of the specific needs and deficiencies of the local entrepreneurs in Andalusia, and it thus clearly attempts to be embedded in the local context. The master includes a number of instruments contributing to the increase of student’s selfefficacy and promoting cooperation. In this way, it favours that students with different psychological profiles and diverging professional capacities work together around a common project. In order to compensate the relative weaknesses in professional and entrepreneurial experience in Andalusia, the master provides students with a selection of case studies and local guest entrepreneurs. Finally, the low risk and innovation propensities found in the regional environment are tackled through a methodology aimed at promoting creativity and innovation among the future entrepreneurs. The course is offered to students in the Master in Secondary School Teaching (MAES) at the University of Seville. In this sense, besides the direct effect on the participants, an additional indirect effect is sought through their implementation of entrepreneurial education initiatives in the secondary schools where they may end up teaching. In particular, since the participants are minoring on career counselling, they may be in a very influential position to open the minds of their pupils to the entrepreneurial career path. 6. References Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. (1990). Small firms in the 1990s. In Z. J. Acs & D. B. Audretsch (Eds.), The economics of small firms: a European challenge. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. Alsos, G. A., & Kaikkonen, V. (2004, May). Opportunity recognition and prior knowledge: a study of experienced entrepreneurs. Paper presented at the 13th Nordic Conference on Small Business Research. Allen, C., & Lee, D. R. (1996). The Entrepreneur as Hero. Journal of Private Enterprise, 12(Fall), 1-15. Ashmore, C. M. (1990). Entrepreneurship in vocational education. In C. A. Kent (Ed.), Entrepreneurship education: current developments, future directions. Westport: Quorum Books. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall. Begley, T. M., Tan, W. L., & Schoch, H. (2005). Politico-economic factors associated with interest in starting a business: A multi-country study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(1), 35-55. Bird, Barbara J. (1989). Entrepreneurial behavior. Glenview, Ill. ; London: Scott, Foresman. Bosma, N., Acs, Z. J., Autio, E., Coduras, A., & Levie, J. (2008). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. 2008 executive report. Wellesley, Massachusetts and London: Global Entrepreneurship Research Consortium (GERA). Brown, R. (1990). Encouraging enterprise: Britain's Graduate Enterprise Program. Journal of Small Business Management, 28(4), 71-77. Bygrave, W. D. (2003). The entrepreneurial process. In W. D. Bygrave & A. Zacharakis (Eds.), The portable MBA in Entrepreneurship (3ª edición ed.). Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 130 Carrier, C. (2005). Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education. In P. Kyrö & C. carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural univeristy context (pp. 136-158). Hämmeenlinna: University of Tampere. Carsrud, A.L., Olm, K., & Eddy, G. (1987). Entrepreneurs—mentors, networks, and successful new venture development: an exploratory study. American Journal of Small Business, 12, 13-18. Cooper, S. Y., & Lucas, W. A. (2007). Developing entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions: lessons from two programmes. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 52nd ICSB World Conference, Turku. Davidsson, P. (1995). Culture, structure and regional levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7(1), 41-62. DeTienne, D. R., & Chandler, G. N. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A pedagogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 242-257. Epstein, R. (1996). Cognition, creativity and behaviour. Wetport (CT): Praeger. European Commission. (2003a). Final report of the expert group „BEST Procedure‟ project on education and training for entrepreneurship. Brussels: Enterprise Directorate-General. European Commission. (2003b). Green Paper - Entrepreneurship in EuropeEuropean Commission. Brussels: DG Enterprise. European Commission. Faiña, A., Lopez-Rodriguez, J., Romero, I., Fernández-Serrano, J., & Montes-Solla, P. (2014). Evaluation of the main achievements of Cohesion Policy Programmes and Projects over the longer term in 15 selected regions (from 1989-1993 programming period to the present) Andalusia Case Study. Brussels: DG REGIO, European Commission. Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2005). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Assess Entrepreneurship Teaching Programmes. Center for Research in Change, Innovation and Strategy of Louvain School of Management, Working Paper 05/2005. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: a new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701-720. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2007). Towards a new methodology to assess the entrepreneurship teaching programmes. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 187-197). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Fernández-Serrano, José, & Romero, Isidoro. (2013). Entrepreneurial quality and regional development: Characterizing SME sectors in low income areas*. Papers in Regional Science, 92(3), 495-513. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00421.x Fernández‐Serrano, J., & Romero, I. (2013). Entrepreneurial quality and regional development: Characterizing SME sectors in low income areas*. Papers in Regional Science, 92(3), 495-513. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00421.x Fillion, L. J. (1995). Entrepreneurship and management: Differing but complementary Processes. Cahier de Recherche, CETAI, HEC Montreal., 95-01. Foley, A., & Griffith, B. (1998). Education, training and the promotion of high quality entrepreneurs in the Republic of Ireland. In M. G. Scott, P. Rosa & H. Klandt (Eds.), Educating entrepreneurs for wealth creation. Aldershot: Ashgate. Garavan, T. N., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994a). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(8), 312. Garavan, T. N., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994b). Entrepreneurship education and training programmes: a review and evaluation - Part II. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(11), 13-21. Gartner, W. B. (1985). A conceptual framework for describing the phenomenon of new venture creation. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 494-706. Gartner, W.B., Carter, N.M., & Hills, G.E. (2003). The language of opportunity. In C. Steyaert & D. Hjorth (Eds.), New movements in entrepreneurship (pp. 103-124). London: Edward Elgar. Gibb, A. A. (1987). Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-up process: lessons from UK experience. Journal of European Industrial Training, 11(4), 2432. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 131 Gibb, A. A. (1998). Entrepreneurial core capacities, competitiveness and management development in the 21st century. Paper presented at the IntEnt Conference, OestrichWinkel. Gorman, G. G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education, enterprise education and education for small business management. International Small Business Journal, 15, 56-77. Greene, Francis J, & Saridakis, George. (2008). The role of higher education skills and support in graduate self‐employment. Studies in Higher Education, 33(6), 653-672. Hartshorn, C., & Parvin, W. (1999). Teaching entrepreneurship: creating and implementing a naturalistic model. Paper presented at the International Conference EuroPME, Rennes. Hills, Gerald E, Shrader, Rodney C, & Lumpkin, GT. (1999). Opportunity recognition as a creative process. Frontiers of entrepreneurship research, 19(19), 216-227. Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 3(3), 258-273. Jiao, Hao, & Cui, Yu. (2010). An empirical study of mechanisms to enhance entrepreneurs' capabilities through entrepreneurial learning in an emerging market. Journal of Chinese Entrepreneurship, 2(2), 196-217. Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: Swedish approaches. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3(1), 67-82. Kalternborn, O. (1998). Entrepreneur-Service (ES) - a national project for improved local service to entrepreneurs. In M. G. Scott, P. Rosa & H. Klandt (Eds.), Educating Entrepreneurs for Wealth Creation. Aldershot: Ashgate. Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education 1876-1999. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283-300. Katz, J. A., & Gartner, W. (1988). Properties of emerging organizations. Academy of Management Review, 13, 429-441. Kent, Calvin A. (1990). Entrepreneurship education : current developments, future directions. New York: Quorum Books. Kirby, David A. (2003). Entrepreneurship. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status choice intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47-57. Krueger, N. F. (2000). The cognitive infrastructure of opportunity emergence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 24(3), 5-23. Kyrö, Paula. (2006). Entrepreneurship Education and Finnish Society: Tallinn School of Economics and Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology. Lechner, C., & Dowling, M. (1998). How to design business plan seminars? Single topic business plan courses as a focused approach. Paper presented at the IntEnt Conference, Oestrich-Winkel. Liñán, F. (2007). The Role of Entrepreneurship Education in the Entrepreneurial Process. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Entrepreneurship Education (Vol. 1, pp. 230247). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Liñán, F., Rodríguez-Cohard, J. C., & Rueda-Cantuche, J. M. (2011). Factors affecting entrepreneurial intention levels: a role for education. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(2), 195-218. Liñán, F., Urbano, D., & Guerrero, M. (2011). Regional variations in entrepreneurial cognitions: Start-up intentions of university students in Spain. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 23(3&4), 187-215. doi: 10.1080/0898562090323392 Marchese, M., & Potter, J. (2011). Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local Development in Andalusia, Spain LEED Working Paper Series (Vol. No. 2011/3). Paris: LEED Programme, OECD. Matthews, C. H., & Moser, S. B. (1995). Family background and gender: implications for interest in small firm ownership. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7(4), 365-377. McIntyre, John R., & Roche, M. (1999). University education for entrepreneurs in the United States: a critical and retrospective analysis of trends in the 1990s. Center for International Business Education and Research, Georgia Institute of Technology, Working Paper Series, 99/00-021. Journal for Educators, Teachers and Trainers JETT, Vol. 6 (2); ISSN: 1989-9572 132 Moroz, Peter W., & Hindle, Kevin. (2012). Entrepreneurship as a Process: Toward Harmonizing Multiple Perspectives. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 781-818. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00452.x Nabi, G., & Liñán, F. (2011). Graduate entrepreneurship in the developing world: intentions, education and development. Education+ Training, 53(5), 325-334. OECD. (1998). Fostering entrepreneurship. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Peterman, N. E., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students' perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129-144. Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education - A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479-510. Romero, I., & Fernández-Serrano, J. (2013). Cohesion policy, entrepreneurship and regional development. The case of Andalusia. Paper presented at the XXXIX Congress of the Spanish Association of Regional Science, Oviedo. Ruiz, J. L., Martínez, S., Medina, J. A., & Ramos, A. R. (2013). Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. Andalucía. Informe Ejecutivo 2012. Cadiz: Cátedra de Emprendedores de la Universidad de Cádiz. Santos, F. J., & Liñán, F. (2007). Measuring entrepreneurial quality in southern Europe. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 3(1), 87-107. Sarason, Y., Dean, T., & Dillard, J. F. (2006). Entrepreneurship as the nexus of individual and opportunity: A structuration view. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(3), 286-305. Scott, Michael G, & Twomey, Daniel F. (1988). The long-term supply of entrepreneurs: students' career aspirations in relation to entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management, 26(4), 5-13. Scherer, R. F., Brodzinsky, J. D., & Wiebe, F. A. (1991). Examining the relationship between personality and entrepreneurial career preference. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3, 195-206. Shane, S. (2003). A general theory of entrepreneurship : the individual-opportunity nexus. Cheltenham: E. Elgar. Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217-226. Shaver, K. G., & Scott, L. R. (1991). Person, process, choice: the psychology of new venture creation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 16(2), 23-45. Singh, Robert P, Hills, Gerald E, & Lumpkin, GT. (1999). New venture ideas and entrepreneurial opportunities: Understanding the process of opportunity recognition. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Conference of the United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Specht, P. H. (1993). Munificence and carrying capacity of the environment and organization formation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17, 77-77. Spencer, A. S., Kirchhoff, B. A., & White, C. (2008). Entrepreneurship, innovation, and wealth distribution - The essence of creative destruction. International Small Business Journal, 26(1), 9-26. Timmons, Jeffry A. (1999). New venture creation : entrepreneurship for the 21st century (5th ed.). Boston ; London: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Wennekers, A.R.M., & Thurik, A. R. (1999). Linking Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth. Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27-55. Wilson, F., Kickul, J., & Marlino, D. (2007). Gender, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial career intentions: Implications for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31(3), 387-406. Woldesenbet, Kassa, Ram, Monder, & Jones, Trevor. (2012). Supplying large firms: The role of entrepreneurial and dynamic capabilities in small businesses. International Small Business Journal, 30(5), 493-512. doi: 10.1177/0266242611396390 Zhao, H., Siebert, S.E., & Hills, G. E. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 12651272.