Upload
hoangtram
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
INCLINATION TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP AMONG
COMMUNITY COLLEGE STUDENTS IN MALAYSIA
Chee Hee Hoe1, Ooi Yeng Keat
2, Shuhymee Ahmad
3 and Norashidah Hashim
4
Abstract
Entrepreneurship has been acknowledged as a major growth engine and catalyst in driving a nation’s
economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, wealth creation and these in turn generates new job
opportunities. Along the same argument, Malaysia is also keen to encourage youths especially among the
university graduates to be self-employed by becoming entrepreneurs. Unemployment among new university
graduates is becoming a major problem in Malaysia and hence, the Malaysian government would like to
see graduates becoming self-employed as entrepreneurs. In this respect, entrepreneurship has been
identified as the possible panacea to cure current graduate unemployment.
This study investigates the effect of entrepreneurship education on the role of Malaysian community college
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. The main objectives of this study are: - i) determine
whether the role of community college in promoting entrepreneurship significantly affects community
college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship; ii) to examine the effect of entrepreneurial
curriculum and content on community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship; and iii) to
examine whether the role models significantly affects community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. The results of the study showed that 50.8 per cent of the community college students
would consider starting a business as their future career whilst 32.8 per cent stated that they are likely to
start a business after graduation. In terms of role models, parents, career counsellors and
teachers/educators appear to have significant influence in community college students’ decision to pursue
an entrepreneurial career. Hence, this study showed that community colleges play a vital role in fostering
and promoting entrepreneurship in order to produce more entrepreneurial-inclined graduates.
Key words: Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial
inclination, community college
1.0 Introduction
One of the main social development problems facing the Malaysian government is graduate
unemployment. According to the Deputy Human Resources Minister, approximately more
than 70,000 graduates are still unemployed (Staff, 2012). Graduates’ preference for becoming
paid employees over becoming self-employed and the current universities’ systems that
promote rote learning are believed to be among the several contributing factors to the current
problem (Fong 2005; Muszafarshah and Woon 2004). In relation to this, the Malaysian
government considers involvement in entrepreneurship as a possible solution to the problem
of graduate unemployment. This is because many economists and politicians agree that
entrepreneurship stimulates the generation of employment opportunities and wealth creation
(Dana, 2001; Garavan and O'Cinneide, 1994; Kong, 1996). Given the vital role of
entrepreneurship as an engine of economic growth, there is a keen interest from policy
makers and academics in encouraging entrepreneurship education and other entrepreneurial
development programmes in order to encourage graduates to become more entrepreneurial-
inclined which in turn will stimulate economic growth (Gorman et. al., 1997). As a result,
many universities internationally are currently offering entrepreneurship as a taught subject
1 Chee Hee Hoe, College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia (corresponding author)
Email: [email protected] 2 College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia 3 College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia 4 College of Business, Universiti Utara Malaysia
2
(Kolvereid and Moen, 1997). For example, in the United States, there are more than 400
colleges and universities offering courses in entrepreneurship education and the number of
students taking entrepreneurial courses is on the rise (Kuratko and Hodgetts, 2007). In
addition, these courses are not only offered by business schools at the undergraduate and
graduate levels, but they are also offered in other faculties, such as engineering and
information technology (Garavan and O'Cinneide, 1994; Leitch and Harrison, 1999).
The fast growth of entrepreneurship education is evidence that those who attended
entrepreneurship courses have a higher inclination to venture into new business than those
who attended other courses (Galloway and Brown 2002; Ibrahim and Soufani, 2002;
Klofsten, 2000). In addition, formal entrepreneurial education has been found to affect
attitudes of university students towards entrepreneurship as a career option (Hansemark,
1998). Therefore, in Malaysia much expectation has been placed upon tertiary education to
play a leading role in developing and producing more entrepreneurial-inclined students (Din,
1992). The role of tertiary education has been considered central to the implementation of
entrepreneurship education. Universities, in this regard, have been urged to promote
entrepreneurial spirit among students through a series of education programmes such as new
programmes or courses in entrepreneurship (Malaysia, 2006b). Along the same light,
community colleges in Malaysia have also been encouraged to promote and help in preparing
their students to become entrepreneurs upon graduating from these colleges. Thus, a
reasonable concern is then posed about the capability of community colleges in preparing
university students for choosing entrepreneurship as their viable future career. To address the
concern, this study examines the effect of entrepreneurship education by focusing on the role
of community colleges in promoting entrepreneurship, role models and entrepreneurial
curriculum and content.
1.1 Objectives of the study
The main objective of this research is to examine the effect of entrepreneurship education on
Malaysian community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. The specific
objectives of this study are:- i) to determine whether the role of community college in
promoting entrepreneurship significantly affects community college students’ inclination
towards entrepreneurship; ii) to examine the effect of entrepreneurial curriculum and content
on community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship; and iii) to examine
whether the role models significantly affect community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
2.0 Literature Review
2.1 The importance of entrepreneurship
The centrality of entrepreneurship in contributing to individual, social and national
development has attracted the interest of many researchers (e.g., Fayolle and Degeorge, 2006;
Matlay and Westhead, 2005; Wennekers and Thurik, 1999). The words entrepreneurship and
entrepreneur have become everyday buzzwords and have drawn the attention of policy
makers, economists, practitioners, academics and even entrepreneurs (Béchard and Toulouse,
1998; Matlay, 2005a; Schaper and Volery, 2004). For most of them, the popularity of
entrepreneurship is largely due to its positive effect as a catalyst that creates wealth and job
opportunities (Gurol and Atsan, 2006; Laukkanen, 2000; Matlay, 2005b; Othman et. al.,
2005; Postigo and Tamborini, 2002). Thus, many policy makers hail entrepreneurship as one
3
of the best economic development strategies to boost a country’s economic growth today
(Matlay, 2005a, 2005b). Entrepreneurship is a critical input in economic development
because it creates lots of job opportunities, stimulates innovative thinking and also acts as a
‘stabiliser’ for countries and societies (Formica, 2002; Postigo and Tamborini, 2002).
2.2 Entrepreneurship and education
A strong belief has emerged that entrepreneurship can be developed through systematic
development and planned efforts (Gorman et. al., 1997; Schieb-Bienfait, 2004; Sethi, 2006;
Vesper, 1994). Therefore, the myth that entrepreneurs are born not made is no longer
sustained (Cone 2006; Kuratko 2006; Menzies and Paradi 2003). Today, most research has
debunked the myth and emphasises that the necessary skills such as problem solving and
leadership can be learned and taught through education and training programmes (Gorman et.
al., 1997; Henderson and Robertson, 1999, 2000). In this regard, the role of education and
training is important in the development of entrepreneurs (Finkle and Deeds, 2001). This is
evidenced by the rapid development of entrepreneurship education in colleges and
universities worldwide (Cooper et. al., 2004). There are an overwhelming number of
entrepreneurship courses on offer as well as many students studying entrepreneurship, either
at undergraduate or postgraduate levels (Brockhaus, 1991; Fleming, 1996; Henry et. al.,
2003; Ibrahim and Soufani, 2002).
2.3 The development of entrepreneurship education: An overview
The history of entrepreneurship education can be dated back to 1938 when Shigeru Fijii, who
was a teaching pioneer at Kobe Community college, Japan, initiated education in
entrepreneurship (Alberti et. al., 2004). Despite this beginning, most of the entrepreneurship
courses and programmes were pioneered and introduced in American universities. Many
American universities have a comparatively long tradition as entrepreneurship education
providers through their business schools and have well documented entrepreneurship courses,
paving the way for entrepreneurship studies as a legitimate academic area (Franke and
Luthje, 2004).
The first entrepreneurship course was offered in an MBA course titled ‘Management of New
Enterprise’ at Harvard Business School in 1947 (Katz, 2003), followed by New York
Community college in 1953, then Babson College in 1968 with the introduction of the first
undergraduate major in entrepreneurship. The Community college in Southern California
offered the first entrepreneurship major at the MBA level at 1972 (Finkle and Deeds, 2001).
Studies in entrepreneurship have experienced an enormous growth (Solomon et. al., 2005).
One of the key factors is that wages employment or ‘secure’ employment is no longer
guaranteed, especially in the public sector for community college graduates (Collins et. al.,
2004; Postigo et. al., 2006). Further, the changing structure of society and technology, and re-
engineering and decentralisation exercised by most organisations have reduced job
opportunities available for graduates (Katz, 2003). As a result, graduates are now searching
for a quality education that can equip them with necessary business knowledge and skills to
succeed in running businesses or to create jobs by seizing existing entrepreneurial
opportunities (Brown 1999; Henry 2003).
2.3.1 The objectives of entrepreneurship education
4
In general, the purpose of entrepreneurship education is ultimately creating and increasing the
awareness of and positive behaviour towards entrepreneurship as new venture creation and as
a feasible career option (Charney and Libecap, 2003; Fayolle and Gailly, 2005; Lena and
Wong, 2006; OECD, 2005).
However, providing the right education to nurture the right individuals in the right place
should be the main concern for entrepreneurship educators as individuals vary according to
their stages of learning (Lena and Wong, 2006). Some individuals require a particular
entrepreneurial skill at a particular stage, for example at an early stage of schooling or at a
later stage of life. Therefore, regardless of the stage at which a person considers starting a
business, an ongoing process of entrepreneurial learning is needed to ensure individuals are
really being exposed to the thrust of entrepreneurship and are equipped with the skills to
encourage them to confidently start a venture (Galloway and Brown, 2002). Johannisson
(1991), in this regard, as represented in Table 1 explains that entrepreneurship education has
five levels of entrepreneurial skills that can be developed when learning entrepreneurship:
know why (attitudes, values and motivation), know how (abilities), know who (short and long
term social abilities), know when (long-term social skills) and know what (knowledge).
Table 1: Five levels of learning of entrepreneurial skills
Levels of learning Individual Context
Know why Self-confidence,
motivated to achieve,
perseverance, acceptance
of risk
Entrepreneurial spirit, sponsors,
models
Know how Technical abilities Complex structures on both career
and business levels
Know who Ability to develop
networks
Production and social networks
Know when Experience and intuition Industrial traditions
Know what Encyclopaedism,
institutional facts
Information networks, technical training,
diversified cultural life
Source: Johannisson, B 1991, ‘University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish
approach’, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 67–82.
Gibb (2002b) and Laukkanen (2000) have recommended two different entrepreneurial
learning objectives:- a) education for entrepreneurship and b) education about
entrepreneurship. Education for entrepreneurship aims to produce students who are capable
of dealing with real entrepreneurial activity in a practical way and to increase their awareness
of self-employment as a career option. Education about entrepreneurship is concerned with
teaching entrepreneurship theories as a required subject in the syllabus via traditional
methods (Gibb, 2002a; Laukkanen, 2000). Similarly, Guzmán and Liñán (2005) outline four
categories of entrepreneurship education objectives: i) entrepreneurial awareness education,
ii) education for start-up, iii) continuing education for existing entrepreneurs and iv)
education for entrepreneurial dynamism.
2.4 The role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship
With regard to entrepreneurial development, universities, as a seedbed of entrepreneurship,
play a functional role in promoting entrepreneurship education to develop regional economies
and societies (Bygrave, 2004; Co and Mitchell, 2006). Menzies (2003) states the two
essential roles of universities in promoting entrepreneurship education are i) to provide credit
5
courses as electives for business and management students and more recently for non-
business students; and ii) encourage and nurture self-employment, small business creation
and growth, and the creation of potential high growth start-ups.
Mahlberg (1996) agrees with these remarks by stating that universities have a key role to play
in fostering entrepreneurship, since educational institutions are considered the ideal place for
shaping entrepreneurial cultures and aspirations among students in order for them to survive
in today’s robust business milieu (Landstrom, 2005). Gasse and Tremblay (2006), in a
similar vein, affirm that educational institutions have an important role in developing
entrepreneurship by providing support activities such as training, business advice and even
helping students to raise funds. It is suggested that universities should improve the image of
entrepreneurship and promote entrepreneurship as a possible career choice among students by
providing suitable entrepreneurial networks and good role models in teaching
entrepreneurship (Luthje and Franke 2003).
Hence it is important within the community college environment to present students with a
positive image of entrepreneurship as a career option by providing appropriate resources and
other facilities. This is because even though individuals may have the business knowledge
and skills, if they do not possess a positive image about entrepreneurship, they may not
successfully venture into business (Landstrom, 2005).
2.5 The entrepreneurial curriculum and content
According to Posner (1995), content is considered the heart of any educational curriculum or
programme. The issue underscoring the concern about the entrepreneurial curriculum is the
knowledge that is believed to be important for the achievement of target objectives. Du Toit
(2000) posits that the challenge of designing entrepreneurial curriculum and content is
teaching creativity and analytical skills while teaching business basics at the same time.
A range of suggestions as to what should be incorporated into the content of entrepreneurship
education has been widely published in the literature. Brown (2000) emphasises that the
entrepreneurial curriculum should consider the features needed to start up a venture as well as
teach the fundamentals of employment skills. On the other hand, Brown (1999) indicates that
the entrepreneurship course content should be informal, with an emphasis on hands-on
teaching methods. She then outlines the core structure for the teaching of entrepreneurship
courses, viz., a) critical thinking; b) reliance on experience – successful courses accessing
students skills and needs; c) thinking about entrepreneurship as a career; and d) using guest
speakers who are experienced entrepreneurs.
2.6 Pedagogical approaches
A plethora of different teaching methods has been suggested by various entrepreneurial
researchers such as Garavan and O'Cinneide (1994) and Solomon et. al. (2005). As with the
entrepreneurial curriculum, it is arguably impossible to seek a consensus on appropriate
entrepreneurial teaching methods (Niyonkuru, 2005). This is mainly because different
entrepreneurial course objectives might require different delivery methods to successfully
impart the relevant knowledge and skills (Charney and Libecap, 2003; Du Toit, 2000).
Levie (1999b) contends that the decision to use a teaching method in entrepreneurship is
generally based on whether the courses are for entrepreneurship or about entrepreneurship.
6
The former is aimed at producing students who are capable of dealing with real
entrepreneurial activity or transforming students’ entrepreneurial knowledge and skills in a
practical way. Courses about entrepreneurship are concerned with teaching entrepreneurship
as a required subject in the syllabus via traditional methods (Gibb 2002a). The differences in
courses for and about entrepreneurship in terms of teaching methods used are shown in Table
2.
Table 2: Differences between courses for entrepreneurship and courses about entrepreneurship
Courses for entrepreneurship Courses about entrepreneurship
Case studies
Guest speakers
Group projects
Group business plans
Class participation assessed
Lectures
Individual essays
Individual end-of-term written exams
Source: Levie, J 1999, Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England: A survey,
Department for Employment and Education, UK, viewed July 7 2005,
http://www.entrepreneur.strath.ac.uk/research/surv.pdf
In brief, despite the lack of consensus on the appropriate entrepreneurial content and
pedagogical methods, it is perceived that the end-result of entrepreneurship courses is to be
able to create entrepreneurial-inclined graduates that are capable of developing an
understanding of the formation of new ventures theoretically and practically. Content is also
expected to increase students’ interest in entrepreneurship so that they will eventually create
and operate new ventures.
2.7 Role models
The effect of role models on inclination towards entrepreneurship is widely discussed in the
literature (e.g., Krueger et. al., 2000; Van Auken et. al., 2006). According to Hisrich et al.
(2005), role models are ‘individuals influencing an entrepreneur’s career choice or styles’ (p.
68). They further accentuate that role models have a vital influence on individuals in
determining entrepreneurial careers as they provide useful business-related information and
guidance apart from moral support.
Role models, in this context, are imperative because they provide individuals with training
for socialisation (Postigo et. al., 2006). Further, they provide observational learning
experience (Bygrave, 2004; Van Auken et. al., 2006). The reasoning is that by directly seeing
successful persons in business, an individual will wish to imitate in order to become similarly
successful (Caputo and Dolinsky, 1998; Postigo et. al., 2006).
Hence many studies have focused extensively on role models such as parents (Henderson and
Robertson, 2000; Kirkwood, 2007; Krueger et. al., 2000; Van Auken et al., 2006), close
friends and relatives (Dunn, 2004; Gray et. al., 2006) and educators (Birdthistle et. al., 2007;
Deakins et. al., 2005) who have influenced students’ entrepreneurial career choices. Dunn
(2004) demonstrates that role models have been the dominant and/or encouragement factor
for the prediction of status choice among Australian students, either self-employed or
employees. More interestingly, Venkataraman (2004) states that role models are one of the
seven entrepreneurship intangibles that provide conditions to enable entrepreneurship to
thrive in a locality.
7
According to Hytti and O’Gorman (2004), educators are a critical element in the development
of effective enterprise education initiatives. Educators or teachers play a vital role in the
learning process as their teaching styles and attitudes towards entrepreneurship will have
significant impact on students. Therefore, whether the entrepreneurship education programme
achieves its overall objective mainly depends on the capability of educators (Birdthistle et.
al., 2007). Moreover the role of teachers is indispensable in education as they ‘prepare,
encourage and cultivate students’ (Boyle, 2007, p. 12). This view is supported by studies by
Hee and James (1994) and Fayolle and Degeorge (2006) which show that those in the
teaching professions are able to influence the career choices of their students.
3.0 Research Methodology
The main objective of the research is to investigate the effect of entrepreneurship education
on Malaysian community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. A survey-
based method, where respondents complete a questionnaire without involvement or presence
of the researcher (Dane, 1990), was used. The respondents in this study were community
college students from the northern region of the Peninsular Malaysia (Kedah and Penang).
The population definition was based on the assumption that students who had undergone the
entrepreneurial learning process and were in the final year of studies would have a better
understanding regarding future careers (Super, 1990). Given that they were in the final stages
of their undergraduate studies and that the majority of the students would be looking for a
career, it was deemed that the population selected would reflect student intention and
inclination. In other words, those students would be in a better position of firming their
vocational goals based on their interest. In total the population for this study was 700. In the
analyses that followed it is assumed that the respondents represent a random sample from the
population. Sekaran and Bourgie (2009) advocated that a minimum of 50 respondents is
needed in order to allow a meaningful level of statistical analysis. Krejcie and Morgan (cited
in Sekaran and Bourgie (2009), p. 294) have produced a table for determining sample size.
Based on the table, a minimum of 248 students is required for a population size of 700. After
discarding incomplete questionnaires, 250 questionnaires remained a sufficient sample size
according to Krejcie and Morgan’s proposed table for determining sample size.
3.1 Hypotheses
To answer the research questions, the following alternate or research hypotheses were
formulated in this study to examine the effect of entrepreneurship education on community
college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship:
H1: There is a positive relationship between the role of universities in promoting
entrepreneurship and community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship.
H2: There is a positive relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and content and
community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
H3: There is a positive relationship between role models and community college students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship.
3.2 Design of the questionnaire
3.2.1 Instrumentation design
8
The questionnaire for this study was divided into the following variables; a) demographic
characteristics and family background; b) future career planning and entrepreneurial
inclination; c) role models; d) the role of universities in promoting entrepreneurship; and e)
the entrepreneurial curriculum and content.
3.3 Data collection
A self-administered survey method through questionnaires was employed to collect data.
High response rate and minimum intervention bias of the researcher are the advantages of this
method of data collection (Sekaran and Bourgie, 2009). Likewise quick, efficient and
accurate accessing of information is a reason for employing this method (Zikmund, 2003).
The questionnaires were distributed to groups of students using a random sample of classes
during the normal lecture sessions.
4.0 Analysis and Findings
4.1 Description of the respondents’ characteristics
The respondents’ demographic characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, educational level,
working experience, and place of origin as well as parents’ occupations is presented and
discussed in the following section.
4.1.1 Demographic characteristics
Section A of the questionnaire generated information based on selected demographic
characteristics of the respondents. The items selected were gender, ethnicity, religion, age,
birth order, place of origin, educational background, working experience and parental
occupations. The characteristics of the respondents are summarised in Table 3.
Table 3: Respondents’ demographic characteristics
Variable Characteristics Number of
respondents (N = 250)
Percentages
(%)
Gender Male
Female
105
145
42
58
Ethnicity Malay
Chinese
Indian
Other
217
13
16
4
86.8
5.2
6.4
1.6
Religion Islam
Buddhism
Taoism
Hinduism
Christianity
218
14
1
15
2
87.2
5.6
0.40
6
0.80
Age 17-22 years old
23-28 years old
34 years old and above
227
11
12
90.8
4.4
4.8
Birth order Only child
Eldest
Youngest
None of the above
12
82
63
93
4.8
32.8
25.2
37.2
Place of origin Rural areas
Urban areas
111
139
44.4
55.6
Willingness to leave
place of origin if offered
Yes
No
232
18
92.8
7.2
9
better job elsewhere
Working experience Yes
- Less than 6 months
- 6 months–1 year
- more than 1 year
Government sector
Private sector
Helping parents or relatives
business
Other
No
134
70
31
33
11
85
35
3
116
53.6
28
12.4
13.2
4.4
34
14
1.2
44.6
Father’s working status Employed
Self-employed
In between jobs
Unemployed
Retired
Other: Passed away
85
92
7
13
29
24
34
36.8
2.8
5.2
11.6
9.6
Mother’s working status Employed
Self-employed
In between job
Unemployed
Retired
Other: Passed away
35
33
6
106
58
12
14
13.2
2.4
42.4
23.2
4.8
Would parents influence
students’ future careers?
Yes
No
122
128
48.8
51.2
4.1.2 Students’ future career choices
Based on the question about the kind of jobs the respondents would pursue, either being an
employee or starting up a business, 50.8 per cent or 127 of the respondents selected the latter.
Among the reasons given, as shown in Table 4.2a, were ‘an interesting task’ (28.4 per cent;
N=71), ‘to seize business opportunities’ (26.4 per cent; N=66) and ‘members of
family/friends are self-employed’ (23.6 per cent; N=59).
Table 4.2a: Reasons for students’ career choices
Reasons for: Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Being an employee:
Fixed income
Stability of employment
Lack of interest in starting a business
Less risky
Lack of new business idea/opportunity
Lack of finance needed to start a business
123
98
77
52
38
25
38
49.2
39.2
30.8
20.8
15.2
10.0
15.2
Starting own business:
Interesting task
Lack of employment opportunities
Members of family/friends are self-employed
To avoid uncertainties related to employment
To seize business opportunities
In response to the government’s call to become self-
employed
127
71
47
59
43
66
29
50.8
28.4
18.8
23.6
17.2
26.4
11.6
As shown in Table 4.2b, nearly five out of every ten respondents (47.6 per cent; N=119)
reported that they were unsure to start a business after graduation, while 32.8 per cent (N=82)
and 19.6 per cent (N=49) were likely or not going to start a business after their community
college studies.
10
Table 4.2b: Likelihood of starting a business after graduation
Likelihood starting a business Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Yes 82 32.8
No 49 19.6
Unsure 119 47.6
Total 250 100
From a total of 82 respondents who were likely to start a business, as exhibited in Table 4.2c,
23.6 per cent or 59 responded that there was a 51–100 per cent probability of starting their
own businesses or becoming self-employed at some point in the future.
Specifically, 24 per cent (N=60) of respondents planned to start their own business within
five years after graduation (see Table 4.2d). This decision was made because 31.6 per cent
saw a business opportunity while the remaining 0.8 per cent saw this as a necessity (see Table
4.2e). Table 4.2c: Probability of students to start own business
Probability of starting up a business Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
0–25% 4 1.6
26–50% 18 7.2
51–75% 35 14
76–100% 24 9.6
Table 4.2d: Timing to start own business
Plan to start business: Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Within 5 years after graduation 60 24.0
5–10 years after graduation 20 8.0
More than 10 years after graduation 1 0.4
Table 4.2e: Motives to start a business
Motives Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
See a business opportunity 79 31.6
Have to do so out of necessity 2 0.8
The respondents were asked: “In the event that you become unemployed, how likely are you
to consider self-employment?”
As shown in Table 4.2f, the majority of respondents (94.4 per cent; N=236) were very likely
and likely to do so compared to just 5.6 per cent (N=16) who responded that they would not
consider self-employment.
Table 4.2f: The likelihood of students to become self-employed in the event of unemployment Degree of likelihood Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Very likely 95 38
Likely 141 56.4
Unlikely 12 4.8
Very unlikely 2 0.8
4.1.3 Role models’ influences on community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurial careers
11
Previous studies have shown that role models have an important influence on young people’s
decisions to become entrepreneurs. In pursuit of this objective, data were collected in the
questionnaire to determine the level of influence role models have on community college
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. Table 4.3a shows the effect of role models in
influencing community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship.
Table 4.3a: Role models’ influences on community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurial careers The extent of
influence
Role model
Least
influence
Less
influence
No
opinion
Much
influence
Most
influence
N
Mean
‘Other’ 2.8
(7)
4
(1)
79.2
(198)
8.8
(22)
8.8
(22)
250 3.20
Mothers 2
(5)
2.4
(6)
8.4
(21)
24
(60)
63.2
(158)
250 4.44
Fathers 4.8
(12)
0.8
(2)
13.2
(33)
21.6
(54)
59.6
(149)
250 4.30
Teachers/lecturers 2.4
(6)
2.8
(7)
26.4
(66)
39.6
(99)
28.8
(72)
250 3.90
Friends 6
(15)
10
(25)
30
(75)
33.2
(83)
20.8
(52)
250 3.53
Relatives 5.6
(14)
8
(20)
26
(65)
36.8
(92)
23.6
(59)
250 3.65
Career counsellors 5.6
(14)
4.8
(12)
28.8
(72)
36
(90)
24.8
(62)
250 3.70
* Figures in parentheses indicate the number of responses from respondents
Scale used: 1= Least influence, 2= Less influence, 3= no opinion, 4=Much influence, 5= Most influence
Parents (mothers and fathers), career counsellors and teachers/lecturers were the most
influential persons influencing community college students’ inclination to pursue
entrepreneurial careers. The majority of respondents reported that these three role models
have either much or the most influence on them. On the other hand, relatives and friends were
seen to have less influence (Mean=3.65) or least influence (Mean=3.53) on their decisions. It
is important to point out that apart from the mentioned models, it is found that girl or boy
friends (others) also were the least influential persons in shaping their inclination towards
entrepreneurship Mean=3.20).
Table 4.3b: Role models’ encouragement on community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurial careers The extent of
encouragement
Role model
Least
e’ment
Less
e’ment
No
opinion
Much
e’ment
Most
e’ment
N
Mean
‘Other’ 2
(5)
1.6
(4)
82.4
(206)
4.4
(11)
9.6
(24)
250 3.18
Friends 5.6
(14)
10
(25)
30.8
(77)
34.8
(87)
18.8
(47)
250 3.51
Teachers/lecturers 3.2
(8)
5.6
(14)
30.8
(77)
37.2
(93)
23.2
(58)
250 3.72
Mothers 2.4
(6)
2.8
(7)
13.6
(34)
23.6
(59)
57.6
(144)
250 4.31
Fathers 4.4
(11)
2.4
(6)
12.4
(31)
21.2
(53)
59.6
(149)
250 4.29
12
Relatives 6
(15)
8
(20)
28
(70)
31.6
(79)
26.4
(66)
250 3.64
Career counsellors 5.2
(13)
6.8
(17)
32.8
(82)
35.6
(89)
19.6
(49)
250 3.58
E’ment = Encouragement
* Figures in parentheses indicate the number of responses from respondents
Scale used: 1= Least encouragement; 2= Less encouragement; 3= no opinion; 4=Much encouragement;
5= Most encouragement
In terms of encouragement from role models, about half of every ten respondents stated that
fathers (59.6 per cent) and mothers (57.6 per cent) were the most important persons that gave
encouragement to start businesses. This is followed by relatives (26.4 per cent) and
teachers/lecturers (23.2 per cent). Only about two out of every ten respondents (19.6 per cent)
indicated that career counsellors gave much or the most encouragement to them to start a
business. ‘Other’, stated that partners (girl friends or boyfriends) were a source of much or
the most encouragement to them to start a business (see Table 4.3b).
4.1.4 Entrepreneurial courses
Table 4.4a shows the courses taken by the respondents at community colleges. Most
respondents had taken computer (32.8 per cent), hospitality (13.6 per cent) and fashion (12
per cent) courses, whilst surprisingly, only 0.8 per cent had taken entrepreneurship, making it
the least taken course together with other courses (housekeeping, tailoring and engineering). Table 4.4a: Courses taken at community college
Course Frequency (N) Percentage (%)
Computer 82 32.8
Hospitality 34 13.6
Fashion 30 12
Culinary 21 8.4
Mechanical 20 8
Architecture 18 7.2
Food and beverage 13 5.2
Saloon and beauty 11 4.4
Electric and electronic 5 2
Multimedia 5 2
Automotive 4 1.6
Entrepreneurship 2 0.8
Housekeeping 2 0.8
Tailoring 2 0.8
Engineering 1 0.4
4.1.5 Means, standard deviations, maximum and minimum values of variables
All the variables in this study used a five-point Likert scale. So the scales have a range of at
most one to five. The data in Table 4.6 suggest that most of the community college students
have relatively high inclination towards entrepreneurship, with the means of all the variables
surpassing the scale midpoint of 3.
The overall high score means on the entrepreneurship education variables, ranging from 3.75
to 3.82; indicate that entrepreneurship education is an important tool in encouraging
community college students to get involved with entrepreneurial activities. Specifically, good
exposure to entrepreneurship education among community college students seemingly creates
a positive image of entrepreneurship among them.
13
Table 4.6: Minimum, maximum, means and standard deviations of variables
Scales
N
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Standard
Deviations (SD)
Entrepreneurial inclination 250 2.71 4.64 3.68 0.43
Role models 250 2.50 5.00 3.82 0.58
The community college’s role to
promote entrepreneurship
250 2.57 5.00 3.75 0.52
The entrepreneurial curriculum
and content
250 3.00 4.57 3.80 0.37
4.2 Inter-correlations among variables
The correlation test results showed that the inclination towards entrepreneurship is positively
correlated with the other scales: role models (r=0.469; p<0.01); and the role of community
college in promoting entrepreneurship (r=0.434; p<0.01). Therefore, it can be stated that
having a stronger inclination towards entrepreneurship is associated with the role of
universities in promoting entrepreneurship to create a good image of entrepreneurship among
community college students.
Good role models are also associated with community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. However, the entrepreneurial curriculum and content fails to prove the
correlation with inclination towards entrepreneurship since it is not significant (r=0.195),
though the correlation coefficient was positive.
4.2.1 Multiple Regression
Multiple regression was employed to test the hypothesised relationships between
entrepreneurship education (role models, the role of community college in promoting
entrepreneurship, and entrepreneurial curriculum and content), and the inclination towards
entrepreneurship. Table 4.8 shows the regression results, which include unstandardized
coefficients, standard errors, betas, t-values and significance level. The results show that the
regression equation, with all four predictors, was significantly related to the inclination
towards entrepreneurship, with F=8.92, R2 =.251 and was highly significant (p<.0001).
Using the multiple regressions, only 25.1 per cent of the variation in inclination towards
entrepreneurship can be significantly explained by the model (the independent variables). The
highest beta values indicated that role model (β=0.324; t=2.569; p<.005) has the greatest
impact and positive relationship on inclination towards entrepreneurship, followed by the role
of community college in promoting entrepreneurship (β=.218; t=1.632; p<.005).
Interestingly, the findings show that the entrepreneurial curriculum and content (β=.022;
t=.210; p=.834) appear to have no significant relationship with community college students’
inclination towards entrepreneurship.
In sum, the positive beta weight showed that in an effort to increase community college
students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship, they need to be exposed to a good role model
that can influence and guide them towards entrepreneurship. From the above statistical
results, the H1 and H3 hypotheses were supported whilst H2 is rejected.
5.0 Discussion
14
The result shows that 50.8 per cent of the respondents would consider starting a business as
their future career whereas 32.8 per cent of the community college students stated that they
are likely to start a business after graduation. In terms of role models, parents, career
counsellors and teachers/educators appear to have much or the most influence on community
college students’ decision to pursue an entrepreneurial career. The respondents agreed that
fathers and mothers seemed to be the most important persons in providing encouragement to
community college students to pursue a career in entrepreneurship.
In response to the entrepreneurial curriculum and content, most of those surveyed indicated
that most respondents had not been taken entrepreneurship course (0.8 per cent). Hence, there
seems to be no relationship between entrepreneurial curriculum and content and community
college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship. There is a positive statistically
significant relationship between the role of community college in promoting entrepreneurship
and inclination towards entrepreneurship among community college students. There is a
positive statistically significant relationship between the role models and inclination towards
entrepreneurship among community college students.
5.1 Conclusion and Limitation
In answering the first objective of the study, it was seen that community colleges play a vital
role in fostering and promoting entrepreneurship in order to produce more entrepreneurial-
inclined students. The results of the analysis showed a statistically significant support for this
hypothesis. Therefore this hypothesis is supported in this study. The results supported the
view of Edwards and Muir (2005) and Postigo et. al., (2006) which emphasise the important
role played by universities in promoting entrepreneurship.
Generally, community colleges have been viewed as the breeding ground for future
entrepreneurs (Bygrave, 2004). Thus the colleges must utilise all resources available in
creating an entrepreneurial ambience to foster entrepreneurship. Furthermore, the findings of
the study could be also explained by the fact that more community college students are now
interested in starting up their own businesses due to the current employment pattern in the
country. This study found 50.8 per cent of the surveyed students stated they are interested in
starting up a business as their future career (see Table 4.2a). As a result, more and more
Malaysian community college students seek a quality education that will equip them with
necessary entrepreneurial knowledge and skills for their future career.
The government’s call to launch a business as well as the encouragement and incentives
provided to community college students can also be one of the factors driving more students
to be involved in entrepreneurial activities. Community colleges, in response to the
government’s moves, need to play a more significant role than that of a traditional knowledge
disseminator. The colleges must act on their responsibility by providing greater learning
opportunities for students to learn about entrepreneurship and ultimately prepare them to start
their own ventures.
As for the second objective, the results of the analysis showed no relationship between the
entrepreneurial curriculum and content and community college students’ inclination towards
entrepreneurship. Therefore the hypothesis is rejected in this study. The finding is somewhat
astonishing. The result is inconsistent with Charney and Libecap (2003) and Ramayah and
Harun (2005) generally, scholars agree on the importance of attending entrepreneurial
15
courses or training in relation to the promotion of entrepreneurship which, in turn, will
increase students’ level of entrepreneurial inclination. This can be explained easily because of
the students are lacking of awareness or emphasis given by the colleges to take up
entrepreneurship courses.
In this study, the students had taken the computer, hospitality, fashion and culinary courses
during their studies (see Table 4.4a) and not business/entrepreneurship courses. This is
because, essentially, basic exposure to other business courses such as strategic management,
marketing and finance and accounting is vital for entrepreneurial skills development. Yet
these courses are not available at community colleges.
In answering the third objective 3, the results of the study showed that there is a statistically
significant relationship between role models (parents or career counsellors) was found
regarding community college students’ inclination towards entrepreneurship (see Table 4.8).
Therefore the hypothesis is supported. The earlier findings showed that students stated that
parents, career counsellors, teachers/lectures and relatives were most influential (see Table
4.3a) and encouraged them (see Table 4.3b) to start up a business. The results are consistent
with previous studies by Edwards and Muir (2005) and Birdthistle et. al., (2007), who point
out that lecturers play an important supportive role in influencing and encouraging students in
their inclination towards entrepreneurship.
This is possible based on the basic conjecture that parents are always providing enterprising
role models for their children. In general, it is notable that most of the parents are having their
own businesses. This has indirectly influenced the mind-set of the students to follow their
parents’ footstep in the future. Perhaps this is also a reflection of the community college
students’ childhood upbringing as discussed by Kirkwood (2007). As parents play a vital role
in rearing their children, they may directly establish a special parent–child relationship and
thus easily influence their children’s decisions.
There were several limitations that restricted the findings of this study. The most important
limitation lies in the ability to generalise the results. Due to financial and time constraints, the
data were sampled from community college students in the northern region of Peninsular
Malaysia. The results of the study could not be generalised as a whole and might be
applicable to the northern region only.
REFERENCES
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S., & Poli, A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Note on an ongoing
debate, 14th Annual IntEnt Conference, University of Napoli Federico, Italy.
Béchard, J. P., & Toulouse, J. M. (1998). Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of
training objectives in entrepreneurship, Journal of Business Venturing, 13, 317-332.
Birdthistle, N., Hynes, B., & Fleming, P. (2007). Enterprise education programmes in
secondary schools in Ireland: A multi-stakeholder perspective, Education + Training,
49(4), 265-276.
Boyle, T. J. (2007). A new model of entrepreneurship education: Implications for Central
and Eastern European universities, Industry & Higher Education, 16, 9-19.
Brockhaus, R. H. (1991). Entrepreneurship education and research outside North America,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(3), 77-83.
Brown, C. (1999). Teaching new dogs new tricks: The rise of entrepreneurship education in
graduate schools of business, DIGEST, 99(2), 1-4.
16
Brown, C. (2000). Curriculum for entrepreneurship education: A review, DIGEST,
September, 1-8.
Bygrave, W. D. Z. A. (2004). The portable MBA in entrepreneurship, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., New Jersey.
Caputo, R. K., & Dolinsky, A. (1998). Women's choice to pursue self-employment: The role
of financial and human capital of household members, Journal of Small Business
Management, 36(3), 8-17.
Charney, A. H., & Libecap, G. D. (2003). The contribution of entrepreneurship education: An
analysis of the Berger programme, International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education,
1(3), 385-418.
Co, M. J., & Mitchell, B. (2006). Entrepreneurship education in South Africa: A nationwide
survey, Education + Training, 48(5), 348-359.
Collins, L., Hannon, P. D., & Smith, A. (2004). Enacting entrepreneurial intent: The gaps
between student needs and higher education capability, Education + Training, 46(8/9),
454-463.
Cone, J. (2006). Teaching entrepreneurship in colleges and universities: How and why a new
academic field is being built?, viewed May 4 2006,
http://kauffman.org/resources.cfm?itemID=716.
Cooper, S., Bottomley, C., & Gordon, J. (2004). Stepping out of the classroom and up the
ladder of learning: An experiential learning approach to entrepreneurship education,
Industry & Higher Education, 18(1), 11-22.
Dana, L. P. (2001). The education and training of entrepreneurs in Asia', Education +
Training, 43(8/9), 405-415.
Dane, F. C. (1990). Research methods, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California, USA.
Deakins, D., Glancey, K., Menter, I., & Wyper, J. (2005). Enterprise education: The role of
Head Teachers, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1, 241-263.
Din, M. S. (1992). The development of entrepreneurship and enterprise in higher education
in Malaysia, PhD thesis, Community college of Durham.
Du Toit, A. (2000). Teaching infopreneurship: Students' perspectives, Aslib Proceedings,
52(2), 83-90.
Dunn, C. (2004). Background of nascent entrepreneurs, viewed January 23
2006, www.sbaer.uca.edu/research/icsb/2004/Papers%20pdf/010.pdf.
Edwards, L. J., & Muir, E. J. (2005). Promoting entrepreneurship at the Community college
of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning, Journal of Small Business and
Enterprise Development, 12(4), 613-626.
Edwards, L. J., & Muir, E. J. (2006). Sign, sealed and delivered: Developing
entrepreneurship teaching strategies, viewed May 5 2006,
http://www.ncge.org.uk/communities/files/biblio612.pdf.
Fayolle, A., & Degeorge, J. M. (2006). Attitudes, intentions and behaviour: New approaches
to evaluating entrepreneurship education, in Fayolle, A. K. H. (ed) International
Entrepreneurship Education: Issues and newness, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
Cheltenham, UK.
Fayolle, A. G., & Gailly, B. (2005). Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour to assess
entrepreneurship teaching programmes, Centre for Research in Change, Innovation and
Strategy, 1-18.
Finkle, T. A., & Deeds, D. (2001). Trends in the market for entrepreneurship faculty, 1989-
1998, Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 613-630.
Fleming, P. (1996). Entrepreneurship education in Ireland: A longitudinal study, Academy of
Entrepreneurship Journal, 2(1), 95-119.
17
Fong, C. O. (2005). The official opening Malaysia Career and Training Fair, viewed April
10 2012, www.mohr.gov.my/mygoveg/makluman/spm447.htm.
Formica, P. (2002). Entrepreneurial universities: The value of education in encouraging
entrepreneurship, Industry & Higher Education, 16(3), 167-175.
Franke, N. & Luthje, C. (2004). Entrepreneurship intentions of business students: A
benchmarking study, viewed October 23 2012, www2.wu-
wien.ac.at/entrep/modules/UpDownload/store_folder/Publikationen/Nikolaus_Franke/entr
epreneurialspirit.pdf.
Galloway, L., & Brown, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship education at community college: A
driver in the creation of high growth firms? Education + Training, 44(8/9), 98-405.
Garavan, T. N., & O'Cinneide, B. (1994). Entrepreneurship education and training
programmes: A review and evaluation - Part 1, Journal of European Industrial Training,
18(8), 3-12.
Gasse, Y., & Tremblay, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship education among students at a Canadian
community college: An extensive empirical study of students' entrepreneurial preferences
and intentions, in Fayolle, A and Klandt, H (eds), International Entrepreneurship
Education, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Gibb, A. (2002(a)). Creating conducive environments for learning and entrepreneurship:
Living with, dealing with, creating and enjoying uncertainty and complexity, Industry &
Higher Education,16(3), 135-148.
Gibb, A. (2002(b)). In pursuit of a new 'enterprise' and 'entrepreneurship' paradigm for
learning: Creative deconstruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new
combination of knowledge, International Journal of Management Review, vol. 4, no. 3,
pp. 213-231.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D., & King, W. (1997). Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for small business management: A ten-year
literature review, International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 56-77.
Gray, K. R., Foster, H., & Howard, M. (2006). Motivations of Moroccans to be
entrepreneurs, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 11(4), 297-318.
Gurol, Y., & Atsan, N. (2006). Entrepreneurial characteristics amongst community college
students: Some insights for entrepreneurship education and training in Turkey, Education
+ Training, 48(1), 25-38.
Guzmán, J., & Liñán, F. (2005). Perspectives on entrepreneurial education: A US-Europe
comparison, viewed December 18 2012, www.nebrija.com/jean_monnet/pdf/guzman-
linian.pdf.
Hansemark, O. C. (1998). The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on Need for
Achievement and Locus of Control of reinforcement, International Journal of
Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 4(1), 28-50.
Hee, A. T., & James, T. (1994). Career choice of undergraduates and SMEs in Singapore,
International Journal of Career Management, 6(3), 20-26.
Henderson, R., & Robertson, M. (1999). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young attitudes
to entrepreneurship as a career, Education + Training, 41(5), 236-245.
Henderson, R., & Robertson, M. (2000). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young attitudes
to entrepreneurship as a career, Education + Training, 41(5),236-245.
Henry, B. 2003, Entrepreneurship education in Kenya: A reality or plodding on? The First
International Entrepreneurship Conference, 23-24 April Kenya,
Hisrich, R. D., Peters, M. P., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Entrepreneurship, 6th edn.,
McGraw-Hill Irwin, NY, USA.
18
Hytti, U., & O'Gorman, C. (2004). What is 'enterprise education?' An analysis of the
objectives and methods of enterprise education programmes in four European countries,
Education + Training, 46(1), 11-23.
Ibrahim, A. B., & Soufani, K. (2002). Entrepreneurship education and training in Canada: A
critical assessment, Education + Training, 44(8/9), 421-430.
Johannisson, B. (1991). University training for entrepreneurship: A Swedish approach,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 3(1), 67-82.
Katz, J. A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education, Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 282-300.
Kirkwood, J. (2007). Igniting the entrepreneurial spirit: Is the role parents play gendered?
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 13(1), 39-59.
Klofsten, M. (2000). Training entrepreneurship at universities: A Swedish case, Journal of
European Industrial Training, 24(6), 337-344.
Kolvereid, L., & Moen, O. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major
in entrepreneurship make a different? Journal of European Industrial Training, 21(4),
154-160.
Kong, H. F. (1996). Inclination among secondary school teachers of Kuala Muda Yan,
Master's thesis, School of Management, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Sintok, Malaysia.
Krueger, N. F., Reilly, M. D., & Carsrud, A. L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions', Journal of Business Venturing, 15, 411-432.
Kruger, M. E. (2004). Creativity in the entrepreneurship domain, PhD thesis, Department of
Business Management, University of Pretoria.
Kuratko, D. F. (2006). A tribute to 50 years of excellence in entrepreneurship and small
business, Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3),. 483-492.
Kuratko, D. F., & Hodgetts, R. M. (2007). Entrepreneurship: Theory, Process and Practice,
7th edn., Thomson Learning, Ohio, US.
Landstrom, H. (2005). Pioneers in Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research, Springer
Science+Business Media, Inc., New York.
Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship
education: Creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth',
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 12, 25-47.
Leitch, C. M., & Harrison, R. T. (1999). A process model for entrepreneurship education and
development', International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 5(3),
83-109.
Lena, L., & Wong, P. K. (2003). Attitude towards entrepreneurship education and new
venture creation, Journal of Enterprising Culture, 11(4), 339-357.
Luthje, C., & Franke, N. (2003). The 'making' of an entrepreneur: Testing a model of
entrepreneurial intent among engineering students at MIT, R&D Management, 33(2),
135-147.
Mahlberg, T. (1996). Evaluating secondary school and college level entrepreneurial
education - pilot testing questionnaire. The Internationalising Entrepreneurship Education
and Training Conference, Arnhem/Community college of Nijmegen, The Netherlands,
June 23-26.
Malaysia (2001b). Eight Malaysia Plan, Percetakan Nasional Berhad, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
Malaysia (2006b). Ninth Malaysia Plan 2006-2010, The Economic Planning Unit, Prime
Minister's Department, Kuala Lumpur.
Maranville, S. (1992). 'Entrepreneurship in the business curriculum', Journal of Education for
Business, 68(1), 1-8.
19
Matlay, H. (2005a). Researching entrepreneurship and education: Part 1: What is
entrepreneurship and does it matter? Education + Training, 47(8/9), 665-677.
Matlay, H. (2005b). Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual,
contextual and policy considerations, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, 12(4), 627-643.
Matlay, H., & Westhead, P, (2005). Virtual teams and the rise of e-entrepreneurship in
Europe', International Small Business Journal, 23(3), 279-302.
Menzies, T. V., & Paradi, J. C. (2003). Entrepreneurship education and engineering students:
Caree path and business performance', Entrepreneurship and Innovation, May, 121-132.
Muszafarshah, M. M., & Woon, M. V. (2004). From academic knowledge to holistic wisdom:
Four transformations for institutional reform in higher education, viewed August 20
2005, http://herdsa2004.curtin.edu.my/Contributions/NRPapers/A066-jt.pdf.
Niyonkuru, R. (2005). Entrepreneurship education at tertiary institutions in Rwanda: A
situation analysis, Mater's thesis, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and
Management Sciences, Community college of Western Cape, South Africa.
Othman, M. N., Ghazali, E., & Cheng, O. C. (2005). Demographics and personal
characteristics of urban Malaysian entrepreneurs: An ethnic comparison', International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 5(5/6), 421-440.
Posner, G. J. (1995). Analysing the curriculum, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Postigo, S., Iacobucci, D., & Tamborini, F. (2006). Undergraduates students as a source of
potential entrepreneurs: A comparative study between Italy and Argentina', in Fayolle, A
and Klandt, H (eds), International entrepreneurship education: Issues and newness,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc., Cheltenham, UK.
Ramayah, T., & Harun, Z. (2005). Entrepreneurial intention among Universiti Sains Malaysia
students, International Journal of Management and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 8-20.
Schaper, M., & Volery, T. (2004). Entrepreneurship and small business: A Pacific Rim
perspective, John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd, Milton, Queensland.
Schieb-Bienfait, N. (2004). A real world prject driven approach, a pilot experience in a
graduate enterprise programme: Ten years on, International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, 1(1/2) 176-191.
Sekaran, U., Bourgie, R. (2009), Research methods for business: A skill building approach,
5th
ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, USA.
Sethi, J. (2006). Entrepreneur and entrepreneurship, viewed July 8 2011,
www.du.ac.in/coursematerial/ba/esb/Lesson_1.pdf.
Solomon, G. (2007). An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States,
Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 14(2), 168-182.
Solomon, G. T., Weaver, K. M., & Fernald, L. W. (2005). Pedagogical methods of teaching
entrepreneurship: An historical perspective, in Horst, R. V. D., King-Kauanui, S. ,&
Duffy, S. (ed) Keystones of entrepreneurship knowledge, Blackwell Publishing Inc.,
Malden, MA.
Super, D. E. (1990). A life-span, life space approach to career development, in Brown,
D. (eds), Career choice and development, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, USA.
Van Auken, H., Stephens, P., Fry, F., & Silva, J. (2006). Role model influences on
entrepreneurial intentions: A comparison between USA and Mexico, The International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 2(3), 325-336.
Venkataraman, S. (2004). Regional transformation through technological entrepreneurship,
Journal of Business Venturing, 19,153-167.
Vesper, K. H. (1994). Unfinished Business (Entrepreneurship) of the 20th century, USASBE,
San Diego, California, USA.
20
Wennekers, S., & Thurik, R. (1999).'Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth', Small
Business Economics, 13, 27-55.
Zikmund, W. G. (2003). Business research methods, Thomson Learning, Ohio, USA.