prediction of employment status choice - CiteSeerX

USASBE 2008 Proceedings - Page 0401

PREDICTION OF EMPLOYMENT STATUS CHOICE: AN ANALYTICAL APPROACH ON THE RELATION BETWEEN AN ENTRAPRENEURSHIP CLASS AT A US UNIVERSITY AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS INTENTIONS Anita Leffel The University of Texas at San Antonio, USA 501 W. Durango San Antonio, Texas 78207 210-458-2505; [email protected]

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT This paper illustrates research on the application of the theory of planned behavior to predict employment status choice for undergraduate business students at a university in the United States. This study replicates a study conducted on Norwegian students which found support for the theory of planned behavior as applied to employment status choice intention. Gender and self-employment experience were found not to influence actual employment status. The most important relationships found that self-employment intentions are directly influenced by attitude and pressure from social norms but not from perceived behavior control. This implies that students lack the self-confidence required to be self-employed. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004, over 15 million small businesses were established in the United States. Minority-owned firms hired 4.2 million employees in 1997. In 2006, Harvard Business School reported 67 per cent of MBA’s who participated in business plan competitions started a firm. In the early 1980s there were just 270 entrepreneurship courses offered in the United States. Today, entrepreneurial education includes more than 2,200 courses at more than 1,600 schools, 277 endowed faculty positions, 44 academic journals and nearly 150 research centers (Inc, 2006; SBA, 2005). Growth in entrepreneurship education across the country presents challenges to stay innovative and forward-looking, while maintaining the rigors in the academic community. While scholars and researchers strive to theorize and hypothesize on emerging ventures, colleges strive to meet the emerging talent of college students interested in entrepreneurship. One third of new entrepreneurs is younger than age 30, more than 60 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds say they want to own their own businesses, and nearly 80 per cent of would-be entrepreneurs in the U.S. are between the ages 18 and 34. (Tulgan, 1999). With the growth of entrepreneurship programs and the growing numbers of young people emerging as business owners, are we as academics channeling our teaching to effectively handle this challenging ground swell? The purpose of this article is to report a study on a program that placed former undergraduate business students in nascent business start-up


experience. In using the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as a framework, we assessed this experiential learning event and found that perceived behavior control identified in the TPB model (1982) and replicated in the Kolvereid (1996) did not influence employment status choice, defined as the intention of either entering self-employment or an occupation as a salaried employee. INTRODUCTION The number of definitions of entrepreneurship in the literature demonstrates the various perspectives on how universities across the country view this growing field, and ultimately how courses are taught, what topics are covered, and how students and programs will be evaluated. According to the Small Business Administration, there are actually 12 different definitions of an entrepreneur which are listed in “The Report of the President” (SBA, 2005). Krueger and Brazeal, (1994) provide an effective definition of entrepreneurship as the pursuit of an opportunity irrespective of existing resources, and entrepreneurs as those who perceive themselves as pursuing such opportunities. They declare the entrepreneurial potential requires potential entrepreneurs. Peter Drucker, management guru, simplifies but articulates the essence of the field when he stated, “The entrepreneurial mystique? It’s not magic, it’s not mysterious, and it has nothing to do with the genes. It’s a discipline. And like any discipline, it can be learned” (in Kuratko, 2006). In fact, the notion of whether or not entrepreneurship can be taught is a non issue and thus whether or not an entrepreneur is born not made is obsolete (Gorman, Hanlon, and King, 1997; Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy, 2002). The dilemma in entrepreneurship pedagogy is not who is the entrepreneur but meeting the challenges of the young entrepreneurs while advancing as an academic discipline in the academy. To that end, Minniti and Bygrave (2001) informed by Kerner’s 1973 paper define entrepreneurship as “a process of learning, and a theory of entrepreneurship requires a theory of learning” (2001, p 6). Research indicates that prior start-up experience provides tacit knowledge that facilitates decision-making about entrepreneurial opportunities under uncertainty and time pressure (Sarasvathy, 2001). From a theoretical perspective, entrepreneurs learn from past experiences, thus emphasizing the importance of learning in shaping the potential of others (Minniti and Bygrave, 2001). ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING Several studies provide a comprehensive literature analysis of methods used within entrepreneurship education (Borycki, 1989; Solomon and Fernald, 1991; Gorman, Hanlon and King, 1997). Some studies recommend the entrepreneurial experience focus on the entrepreneur, and what attributes are needed to enhance venture success. Gibb (1987) maintains that an educational program should center on the attributes and tasks of an entrepreneur. He suggests that role models, exposure, networks and insight into the


independent business process can accomplish these goals (Gorman, Hanlon, & King, 1997). In identifying other areas for optimizing the entrepreneurial learning environment, Gibb (1987) recommends an enterprise “culture” for the educational process, which he states, requires educators to clearly distinguish among entrepreneurship, enterprising behavior and small business management (Solomon, Duffy and Taraishy, 2002). “Education from entrepreneurship courses and from small business management courses are separate entities –entrepreneurship consists of originating or starting a company, and management consists of operating an existing company” (Zeithaml, & Rice, 1987, p. 44). Other studies point less to the entrepreneur and more to the process involved in start-ups as the entrepreneurial experience. Ulrich and Cole (1987) prefer the focus of learning styles to enhance the learning experience. Using Kolb’s learning theory, they suggest concrete experience to enhance entrepreneurial predilection. Similarly, and expanding the learning experience, Stumpf, Dunbar and Mullen (1991) and Hills (1988) argue for behavioral simulations in teaching entrepreneurship. Simulations are the more popular teaching and learning event that closely emulate the actual experience of nascent entrepreneurship. A number of scholars have made a call for a more reality based and experientially based pedagogy (Plashchka and Welsch 1990). In this way, students could experience the start-up functions theoretically presented in traditional class material; functions such as opportunity recognition, market entry, and legal requirements of a new business.

A more inclusive objective of entrepreneurship education, as offered by Vesper and McMullen (1988) is “to generate more quickly a greater variety of different ideas for how to exploit a business opportunity, and the ability to project a more extensive sequence of actions for entering business.” To that end, a number of studies since the late 1980s have offered suggestions for course topics: • Leadership; • Negotiation; • Career options; • Sources of venture capital; • The stages of venture development; • Projecting new technological developments; • Strategic planning; • Assisting in attracting necessary resources; and • Arranging for joint ventures (Vesper and McMullen, 1988, p. 11). According to a 1994 assessment of entrepreneurship courses (Gartner and Vesper 1994) a standard course included: • The use of cases; • Speakers; • Lectures; • Texts;


• •

The writing of business plans; and Student entrepreneurship clubs.

Their assessment also gleaned a list of successful pedagogical items or ‘experiments’ attempted in various entrepreneurship course offerings. Examples of these experiments are listed below: • Family Business Academy, boot camp for future family business leaders; • Negotiating exercise to buy or sell a company • Developing business plans for employers; • Visits to money management firms, then students manage real portfolio; • Personality test instruments to develop strength and weakness awareness; • Use of mentors in business plan development. Ronstadt (1987) contended that an effective program must show students "how" to entrepreneurially behave and should also introduce them to people who might be able to facilitate their success. As one can see, a unifying framework of entrepreneurship education does not exist in the literature (Plaschka & Welsch, 1990). As faculty can attest, deans (Behrman and Levin 1984) charge that the educational system emphasizes theory and quantitative analysis, tools and concepts, and models and little emphasis on entrepreneurial activity and others complain of students remembering classes that taught them tools, and did not provide them practical “street smart” information (Wojahn, 1986; Plaqschka and Welsch, 1990). Plaschka and Welsch (1990) assert that if entrepreneurship is an integrative activity based upon the capacity to understand very complex dilemmas regarding purpose, possibilities, and tools, then we must follow non-traditional processes in designing entrepreneurship programs. Such nontraditional processes include dealing with overwhelming complexity, multi-functional roles, multi-dimensional problem solving, unpredictability, uncertainty, and ambiguity. Beyond the cases, lectures, mentors, business plan competitions, experientially students can be involved in actual start-ups. EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING THEORY A number of studies in the literature cite the learning in entrepreneurship as experiential (Politis, 2005). In fact a 1997 survey by Winslow, Solomon & Tarabishy (1997) of entrepreneurship education, reported that experiential teaching and evaluation pedagogies are increasingly being employed. Furthermore, the study recommends traditional teaching methods should be abandoned for more unique, unconventional ones (Katz 2003). As the number of definitions of entrepreneurship continue to add to the literature, so we found the different types of entrepreneurial experiential experiences to amass. Kolb (1984) defines experiential learning theory (ELT) as a process by which knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. As Figure 1 shows, ELT is a cyclical process of goal setting, reflection, planning, experimenting and decision making, followed by action, observation, more reflection and reviewing, more decision making and more action, as the circle continues.


FIGURE 1 Experiential Learning Theory Goal setting

Decisionmaking Reflection Transformation

Planning

Experimenting

Observation

Action

Action

Decision’ -making

The central components to Experiential Learning Theory are the acquisition and transformation of the experience into knowledge and understanding. Experiential learning requires the learner to do something and discover what it is like and what it means. Transformation is an element of the learning experience, just as in Ronstadt’s (1988) “corridor principle” which states experience and knowledge gained from starting one business allows an individual to see opportunities for other businesses in a similar arena. In characterizing the transformation of experience, Kolb presents six descriptors for the transformation process as outlined in Table 1. TABLE 1 Kolb’s Experiential Learning Characteristics 1. Learning stimulates inquiry and skill. 2. Learning is grounded in experience. 3. Learning requires resolution of conflicts 4. Learning is a holistic process involving the integration of thinking, feeling, perceiving and behaving. 5. Learning involves transactions between person and environment. 6. Learning is through interaction between subjective life experiences and objective human experience.


The process of entrepreneurial learning includes transforming current or prior knowledge information into new ideas (Shane and Venkataraman, 2000; Kaish and Gilad, 1991). ULTIMATE ENTREPRENEURIAL LEARNING EVENT The ultimate experiential learning event for the entrepreneur students is to be involved with a start-up. This purely experiential learning event satisfies the characteristics of transformational learning as outlined by Kolb (1984) and later by Politis (2005). However, using experiential learning philosophy in the Entrepreneurship course assumes that what the students have already learned in their undergraduate business courses has prepared them for the responsibility of starting and managing a business. Bringing “the real world” into the classroom is risky and complex, yet the return on the experience transforms the generalizations and theories the students learned in their business courses into application (Lederman, 1992). In the fall semester, 2002, the Entrepreneurship undergraduate course at the University began an experiment in entrepreneurial learning. The students were transposed into direct ownership and stakeholders in a real start-up business funded in part by a local businessman. Since the start-up expenses were considered a loan, the class members had to make enough to repay before the end of the semester. They formed a corporation and pursued the expansion of a magazine onto the campus environment at The University. Writing a business plan, forming a strategy to implement the operation, developing a marketing analysis and sales forecasts had to be completed in one semester. And as turnover would be high (students graduating), the business would be brought into existence before the end of the semester. They had three months in which to make sales for advertisements, find students to write editorials, photograph their peers in various offcampus activities, and publish and distribute 10,000 magazines of the first edition. The nascent entrepreneurs were challenged with time-lines, deadlines, bottom-lines, return checks, and disgruntled employees - the skills identified as requisite to becoming an entrepreneur. The Small Business Entrepreneurship program is undergoing change, having learned from these students the entrepreneurial spirit comes with mixing together faculty and students, existing businesses, and community resources. Each semester since that experiment, the students in the entrepreneurship class are required to start a business and make a profit before the end of the semester. Each semester, they use the profits from the last class business for start-up costs. The predominant contextual learning mode is that of . . . learning from peers; learning by doing; learning from feedback from customers and suppliers; learning by copying; learning by experiment; learning by problem solving and opportunity taking; and learning from making mistakes. (Gibb, 1997, p. 19) Do students taking an experientially taught entrepreneurship course exhibit more tendency toward a self-employment career choice than other students who have not taken entrepreneurship as a course of study?


EVALUATION ALTERNATIVES McMullan et al (2001) identified a number of dimensions of which entrepreneurship training and assistance programs might be evaluated. These include: • course attendance, • participant satisfaction, • program referrals and reputation, • subject assessment of overall program effectiveness, • attributions of tangible, specific program benefits, • subsequent performance of participants as seen in such measures as start-up propensity, survival, growth, and profitability. All of these measures taken independent of each other still may not reflect a valid evaluation since many situations and interventions are difficult to isolate Outcomes have multiple causes of which the training is just one (McMullan et al (2001). Using subjective ratings after the learning, such as asking the participant his/her satisfaction in the course, has been shown to replicate the satisfaction level the student felt at the time of the initial evaluation. So for example, if students felt the course was important, or valuable, at the same time they took it, that evaluation holds up over time (Orville and Marsh, 1994). MODELS OF LEARNING What is missing in the literature is an assessment technique that measures impact on individuals of an experiential entrepreneurship course. The ultimate evaluative technique is to determine who is self-employed and who is not. If entrepreneurship is a process, as deemed by Morris (1997) and Pretorius, Nieman and Vuuren (2005) it can occur in any organizational context (Preorius et al) and therefore difficult to limit the evaluation of entrepreneurship education to venture start-ups. In Adult learning theory, the emphasis is on transformational learning (Mezirow, 1991. Transformative learning involves "an enhanced level of awareness of the context of one's beliefs and feelings [and] . . . involves profound changes in self, changes in cognitive, emotional, somatic, and unconscious dimensions" (pp. 161, 177). Thus, discontinuous experiences not only have the capacity to create fundamental changes in the entrepreneur's awareness regarding the effective management of their business but also in terms of the entrepreneur's personal identity—learning that impacts directly on their selfunderstanding, perceptions, and behavior at a much deeper level (Cope, 2003a). In the psychology literature, a number of studies show attitudes based on direct experience: • Rely on more information, • Are better defined, • Are held with greater confidence, • Are more stable over time, and • Are more accessible in memory (Doll & Ajzen, 1992).


In earlier studies on entrepreneurship education, the nexus was on pre-entrepreneurial events and social learning theory (Bandura, in Peterman and Kennedy, 2003). Two models stand out in prior research which offer similar perspectives on the entrepreneurial process: Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Events (SEE) and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB),as in Figure 3. In Shapero’s model, the entrepreneurial event is preceded by an event that predisposes one toward action or intent to act. This event could be a job layoff, for example. This model presumes that intention is a result, therefore, of the desirability and feasibility of an entrepreneurial action. In the TPB, the entrepreneurial intention is preceded by an attitude and belief of one’s capability and desirability, one’s personal behavior or feasibility, and one’s social pressure or normative beliefs. As this model addresses one’s belief and attitude prior to any entrepreneurial event, this model allows for an assessment of an intervention, such as education. In the study by Fayolle, Gailly, & Lassas-Clerc (2007), the Theory of Planned Behaviour formed the model for assessing antecedents to the intention. Krueger and Carsrud (1993) argue that entrepreneurial behavior such as starting a business is intentional and best predicted by intentions toward the behavior. Intentions are the motivating factors, they state, that influence behavior. This is in agreement with the Theory of Planned Behavior that intentions are the immediate antecedents of actual behavior (Ajzen, 1991). THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR The Theory of Planned Behavior postulates that behavior is a function of beliefs, of which three are distinguishable: • behavior beliefs, • normative beliefs, and • control beliefs. We form our beliefs by associated attitudes. Each belief links the behavior to a certain outcome or other such attribute. Since the attribute already holds a certain value positive or negative, simultaneously we acquire an attitude toward that behavior. Figure 2 Theory of Planned Behavior behavior

attitude

normative

intention

control

Action


As Ajzen states: “We learn to evaluate favorably behaviors we believe have largely desirable consequences and we form unfavorable attitudes toward behaviors we associate with mostly undesirable consequences” (Doll & Ajzen, 1992 p.755). Table 2 shows Ajzen’s three beliefs and their corresponding attitudes. TABLE 2 Theory of Planned Behavior Beliefs Behavior (Perceptions of personal value and outcome)

Corresponding Attitude Favorable or unfavorable

Normative Beliefs (Perceptions of society and others)

Perform or not perform

Control Beliefs (Personal behavior feasibility

Ease or difficult

According to the theory, the most important determinant of a person’s behavior is behavior intent. If a person perceives that the outcome from performing a behavior is positive, she/he will have a positive attitude toward performing that behavior. Ajzen states, “To the extent that people are realistic in their judgments of a behavior’s difficulty, a measure of perceived behavioral control can serve as a proxy for actual control and contribute to the prediction of the behavior in question” (2002). A high level of perceived control reinforces increased effort and perseverance to perform the behavior. In applying the theory of planned behavior the theory states that the antecedent of entrepreneurial behavior is the intention to become an entrepreneur/entrepreneurial (Hytti, 2004). This intention in turn is predicted by the extent to which a person has a positive or negative evaluation of entrepreneurial behavior (i.e. attitude), the perception of social pressure to behave entrepreneurial, and people’s confidence in their ability to perform various entrepreneurial activities (perceived behavior control). Confidence is directly connected with perceived behavioral control and according to Ajzen (1991) if one believes there exists obstacles or requisite resources is lacking a low level of perceived behavior control exists. Based on the arguments above: H1: The exposure to entrepreneurship as an experiential event influences the intentions to become self-employed through the effect on attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. METHOD To gather all the data the author used the questionnaire Occupational Status Choice Attitude Indexes developed by Kolereid (1996), and posted it online, and by email invited participation of the students enrolled in the entrepreneurship class at this US business


school as well as two undergraduate business classes, comprising a total of 80 students, of which 44 were male and 36 female. On average, the survey took 15 minutes or less to answer. Of the respondents, 25 percent were unemployed, 7.5 percent were self-employed and 67.5 percent were organizationally employed. MEASURES The present research assumes that an individual has either the choice to become selfemployed or organizationally employed. In the present survey the students were asked, “If you were to choose between running your own business and being employed by someone, what would you prefer?” For the question 82.5 per cent of the total respondents answered that they think they will start a business. 17.5 per cent of these students do not think they will ever start a business. The average score for this question was used as an index and measured using Chronbach’s alpha. A high score indicates that students have a strong desire to become self-employed and a low score a desire to become organizationally employed. In this study a belief based measure of attitude was developed based on some of the reasons people state for preferring self-employment or organizational employment, as per Kolereid (1996). The six assumed reasons people prefer self-employment are: economic opportunity, challenge, autonomy, authority, self-realization, and participate in the whole process. By the same token the five following reasons were assumed to favor organizational employment: security, work load, social environment, avoid responsibility, and career. These 11 reasons had from 2 to 5 sub-items each, for a total of 33 items. Respondents were asked to evaluate the extent to which they agree or disagree with the item when considering it for future work career along a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree). An index for each of the 11 reasons was created by averaging the item scores under each reason. The overall reliability results for each item varied from 0.77 to 0.94, as shown in Table 3.


TABLE 3 Reliability and Spearman Correlation Coefficients

Employment attitude Security Work load Social environment Avoid responsibility Career opportunity Self-employment attitude Economic opportunity Challenge Autonomy Authority Self-realization Participate in the whole process >.234 is sig. at .05 level

Chronbach's alpha

Selfemployment intentions

0.948 0.776 0.874 0.901 0.94

0.087 0.016 0.283 -0.154 0.235

0.852 0.943 0.848 0.812 0.885

0.338 0.116 0.531 0.560 0.330

0.778

0.313

Table 1A Reliability Chronbach's alpha Employment attitude Subjective Norm Motivation Perceived Behavioral Control

0.876 0.855 0.798

To measure the self employment attitude the authors added the index scores of the reasons for becoming self-employed. By the same token, a measure of employment attitude was obtained by adding the index scores of the reasons for becoming organizationally employed. Finally, an overall score for an attitude measure was calculated by the numerical difference between the self-employment attitude and employment attitude measures. A high score (values greater than 1) on the final attitude measure indicates a favorable attitude for becoming self-employed. On the other hand a low score (values below 1) indicates a favorable attitude for becoming organizationally employed. Thus, the value obtained in this study was 1.7, which means that the students have a favorable attitude toward becoming self-employed. Table 3 shows the Spearman correlations between the attitude index and the intentions of becoming self-employed and organizationally employed. All of the correlations are


statistically significant at p < .05. The five correlations measuring the reasons for becoming organizationally employed have a significant effect on the attitude index. The following example is one of the three questions used to measure subjective norm, which was measured by three items. I believe that my closest family thinks that I Should Not___:___:___:___:___:___:___Should 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 The two other items measured the belief that “my closest friends” and “people who are important to me”. Motivation was measured by another three questions, which measured “To which extent do you care about what your closest family, closest friends and people who are important to you think when you are to decide whether or not to pursue a career as self-employed?” The responses were given on a 7 point Likert scale, where 1 meant I do not care at all and 7 I care very much. The responses were recoded into a bipolar scale (1 = -3 and 7 = 3) and then added and averaged in order to obtain an overall measure of subjective norm (Chronbach’s alpha = 0.87). Table 4 shows how perceived behavioral control was measured. TABLE 4 Perceived Behavioral Control 1 2 3 4 5 6

For me, being self-employed would be? If I wanted to, I could easily pursue a career as self-employed. As self-employed, how much control would you have over the situation? The number of events outside my control which could prevent me from being selfemployed are? If I become self-employed, the chances of success would be? If I pursue a career as self-employed, the chances of failure would be?

Very easy = 1; Very difficult = 7 Strongly agree = 1; Strongly disagree = 7 Absolutely no control = 1; Complete control =7

Very few = 1; Numerous = 7 Very low = 1; Very high = 7 Very low = 1; Very high = 7

The responses to items 1, 2, 4 and 6 were re-coded according to the following criteria: Original response: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Re-coded response: 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The 4 re-coded responses and the other two items left were then averaged to obtain an overall measure of perceived behavioral control (Chronbach’s alpha = .79) For the demographic characteristics, respondents were asked to indicate their sex (female = 0, male = 1), current employment status and if self-employed the date on which they became self-employed.


RESULTS, DISCUSSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The Spearman correlations for the analysis variables attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, self-employment experience, sex and intentions are shown in Table 5. The results show that intentions have a significant correlation with attitude and subjective norm. These results do not support the hypothesis that taking an entrepreneurship class at this university influenced the current employment choice status of the current student. TABLE 5 Correlations for In Class & Control Group Correlations for In Class 1 Independent Variables 1. Attitude 2. Social norm 3. Perceived behavioral control 4. Employed Status (1= Unemployed, 2= Selfemployed, 3 = Employed ) 5.Sex (female = 0, male = 1) Dependent Variable Self-employment intentions

0.126 0.240 0.216 0.514 0.117

2

3

0.623 0.002 0.222 0.028 0.076

4

5

0.084

0.494 0.271 -0.090

-0.068

* Experience based on enrollment in class. Actual students assumed not to have self-employment experience Correlations for Control Group 1 Independent Variables 1. Attitude 2. Social norm 3. Perceived behavioral control 4. Employed Status (1= Unemployed, 2= Selfemployed, 3 = Employed ) 5.Sex (female = 0, male = 1) Dependent Variable Self-employment intentions

0.522 0.554 0.071 0.218 0.409

2

3

0.536 0.063 0.187 0.248 0.305 0.719 0.345

4

5

0.149 .-096

-0.055

Quite surprisingly, as predicted by the theory of planned behavior, intentions are found to have a statistically significant correlation with attitude and social norm, but not perceived behavioral control. Additionally, and unlike the Kolereid study, intentions were not correlated with gender or prior self-employment experience. The hypothesis stated that


the exposure to entrepreneurship as an experiential event influences the intentions to become self-employed through the effect on attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. Looking at the comparison between the entrepreneurship students and the general business students, the hypothesis was not supported. A number of issues should be discussed when assessing these results. First, though intentions, as detailed in this study, are good indicators of employment status choice, they may not be the vehicle of analysis of an experientially taught entrepreneurship course of study. As discussed earlier, a method of evaluation for experiential classrooms should be predictive in nature. The theory of planned behavior is an empirically-robust theory, used in a number of studies in identifying antecedents of behavior. Using the theory of planned behavior in this study, tests the utility of the predictive nature of the theory, that is the extent to which the choice of employment status depends on the intentions and whether or not the behavior is under perceived control. The students in the current study exercise intentions through their attitude and what their peers or family members expect. But according to their perceived behavior control, the students lack the perceived confidence in performing the behavior, which in this case is starting a business. Students may gain confidence and self-efficacy in the experientially based classroom, only to realize the enormity of business startup. Additional variables not included in the theory of planned behavior are needed to predict intentions. The present study has several limitations. A pool of undergraduates is not necessarily generalizable to the broader graduates in the same age group and socio-economic status. The findings in this study support the contention that for entrepreneurship education to embrace the 21st century, professors must “… expand their pedagogies to include new and innovative approaches to the teaching of entrepreneurship” (Solomon et al., 2002, pp. 82–83). Ways to measure these approaches, as noted earlier, are incomplete, varied and unreliable. This study sought to measure the success of the experiential nature of this entrepreneurship course. Comments from students made on the class on-line bulletin board show support for the course: One student said: I am often asked "So what are you going to do with your Business Degree?" What you have given us is the opportunity to get out of our degree plan practical application. I believe that you have just redefined the Small Business Entrepreneurship degree platform. Another student said: RTF(radio/tv/film) students get to work with cameras and actors. Medical students get to intern at hospitals. It just seems logical for entrepreneurship students to involve themselves with the starting of a business. By identifying and studying experiential learning events such as reported in this study supports the call proposed by Krueger, Reilly, & Carsrud,(2000) to research ways to help nascent entrepreneurs.


REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991) The Theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211 Ajzen, I. 2002 Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4)p.665683. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall. Cope, J. (2003a). Entrepreneurial learning and critical reflection: Discontinuous events as triggers for higher-level learning. Management Learning, 34(4), 429–450. Doll, J., & Ajzen, I. (1992). Accessibility and stability of predictors in the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 754–765. Fayolle, A., Gailly, B., & Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European Industrial. 30(9), p. 701. Gartner, W. B., and Vesper, K. H. (1994), Executive forum: Experiments in entrepreneurship education: Success and Failures. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(3), p179-187. Gatewood, E.J., Shaver, K.G. & Gartner, W. B. (1995). A longitudinal study of cognitive factors influencing start-up behaviors and success at venture creation. Journal of Business Venturing. 10(5), p. 371-392. Gibb, A. A. (1987), Education for Enterprise: Training for Small Business Initiation -Some Contrasts; JSBE, 4(3), pp42-47. Gibb, A.A. (1997). Small firms' training and competitiveness: Building on the small business as a learning organization. International Small Business Journal, 15(3), 13–29 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, 56. Hytti, U.,& Kuopusjärvi, P. (2004) Evaluating and measuring entrepreneurship and enterprise education: Methods, tolls and practices, www.entreva.net. Katz, J. A. (2003). "The Chronology and Intellectual Trajectory of American Entrepreneurship Education," Journal of Business Venturing 18(2), 283-300. Kolvereid, L. (1996a) Prediction of employment status choice intentions, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20 (3), p. 47


Kolvereid, L. (1996b) Organisational employment versus self-employment: Reasons for career choice intentions, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 20(3), p.23. Krueger, N. F. & Carsrud. A. L, (1993). Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of planned behavior. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development. 5(4)p. 315-330. Krueger, N.F., Reilly, M.D. & Carsrun, A.L. (2000). Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15, P. 411-432. Kuratko, D. (2006). A tribute to 50 years of excellence in entrepreneurship and small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 44(3), p. 483. Lederman, L. C. (1992). Debriefing: Toward a systematic assessment of theory and practice. Simulation & Gaming, 23(2), 145-159. McMullan, E., Chrisman, J.J., & Vesper, K. (2001). Some problems in using subjective measures of effectiveness to evaluate entrepreneurial assistance programs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(1) p.37-53. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass. Minniti, M. & Bygrave, W.D. (2001). A dynamic model of entrepreneurial learning. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 25, p.5–16. Peterman, N.E. & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptional of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28, 129144. Plaschka, G.R. & Welsch, H.P. (1990). Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricula designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), p.55. Plaschka, G.R. & Welsch, H.P. Gerhard R. (1990) Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricula designs and strategies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 14(3), p.55. Politis, D. (2005). The process of entrepreneurial learning: A conceptual framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29(4), p. 399. Pretorius, M., Nieman, G., &van Vuuren. (2005). Critical evaluation of two models for entrepreneurial education: An improved model of integration. The International Journal of Educational Management; 19(4), p. 413


Reuber, R.A., Dyke, L.S., & Fischer, E.M. (1990). Experiential acquired knowledge and entrepreneurial Ronstadt, R.C. (1988). The corridor principle. Journal of Business Venturing, 3(1), 31– 40. Sarasvathy, S.D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), p.243.. Sexton, D.L.& Upton, N. B. (1987).Evaluation of an innovative approach to teaching entrepreneurship. Journal of Small Business Management. 25(1),p.35-43. Sexton, D.L., Upton, N.B., Wacholtz, L.E., & McDougall, P.P. (1997). Learning needs of growth-oriented entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(1), 1–8. Small Business Administration,(2005). Small business economy: A report to the President. Washington Government Printing Office. http://sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/ebeconomy2005.pdf Solomon, G. T., Duffy, S., & Taraishy, A. (2002 ). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 1(1), 1-22. Tulgan, B. (1999). Generation X: The future is now. Entrepreneur of the Year Magazine, 5(42). Vesper, K.H. & Gartner, W.B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), p. 403. Winslow, E.K., Solomon, G.,& Tarabishy, A. (1997). Empirical investigation into entrepreneurship education in the United States: Some results of the 1997 national survey of entrepreneurial education. Zeithaml, C.P. & Rice, G.H. (1987).Entrepreneurship/Small business education in American universities. Journal of Small Business Management, 25(1), p.44.