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: chhoe@uum.edu.my 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.