The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2053-4620.htm

JSTPM
9,3 Entrepreneurship education
program as value creation
Empirical findings of universities
296 in Bandung, Indonesia
Leo Aldianto
Received 5 March 2018
Revised 15 March 2018 School of Business and Management,
Accepted 15 March 2018 Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia
Grisna Anggadwita
School of Economics and Business, Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia, and
Aang Noviyana Umbara
School of Business and Management,
Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, Indonesia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of inputs and processes to the output of
entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) in universities in Bandung, Indonesia. The input here is related
to the audience, institutional setting and type. The process includes the objective, content and teaching method.
The output is represented by entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial behavior.
Meanwhile, this study tries to reflect that inputs, processes and outputs in EEPs to create value for students.
Design/methodology/approach – This study provides empirical evidence of how the influence of
inputs and processes on output of EEPs. The results are based on survey data collected at universities in
Bandung, Indonesia. A total of 222 respondents participated in filling questionnaires. Structural equation
modeling is used to test the proposed hypothesis.
Findings – The study found that inputs are positively and significantly related to the process of EEP. The
study also point out that processes have positive and significant effect on the output of EEP. Meanwhile, the
inputs have negative and insignificant effect on the output of EEP. The study concludes that EEPs should be
integrated in providing learning to students in encouraging business creation through the identification of
inputs, processes and outputs so as to provide insight into how to manage value creation.
Practical implications – The study is valuable from a university and government perspective, as it
highlights the most effective EEP for creating value that is an increase in the number of young entrepreneurs
and business creation.
Originality/value – This study adds knowledge based on students’ perspectives at universities by
demonstrating the importance of inputs and processes for EEP output as value creation in giving impact for
students to be entrepreneurs.
Keywords Universities, SEM, Value creation, Business creation, Entrepreneurship education programme
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Journal of Science and Technology
Policy Management
The idea of inculcating entrepreneurship into education has encouraged enthusiasm in the last
Vol. 9 No. 3, 2018
pp. 296-309
few decades (Lackéus and Williams Middleton, 2015). Entrepreneurship in the educational
© Emerald Publishing Limited context not only focuses on encouraging students to start a business but also makes students
2053-4620
DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-03-2018-0024 more creative, opportunity-oriented, proactive and innovative. Entrepreneurship education
seeks to train students’ ability and willingness to create value for others. This is the core of Education
entrepreneurship and is also a competency that all students must have, regardless of their program as
career choice. Creating a new organization is seen as one of the different ways to create value.
According to Fayolle (2007), there are three main research flows in entrepreneurial research;
value creation
learning entrepreneurship as creation of new organizations, discovery or creation of
opportunities or the creation of new values. The value creation perspective for entrepreneurship
was further developed by Bruyat (1993), which proposed a definition based on two dimensions:
novelty values created for others and the impact of processes on the individual. Creating new 297
value is highly relevant to entrepreneurship education applications. Letting students learn and
grow by creating value for others can be a powerful method for developing entrepreneurial
behavior, entrepreneurial competence and even entrepreneurial identity (Williams Middleton,
2013).
Entrepreneurship education often focuses on developing the competencies needed to
establish the business, and the broader term of enterprise education is often self-oriented in
terms of developing self-reliance, self-efficacy, creativity, initiative, action-taking and
orientation (QAA, 2012; Mahieu, 2006). Entrepreneurship education program (EEP) is an
effort to create value for students in entrepreneurship activities. Fayolle (2013) encourages
researchers to move forward and start paying attention to questions such as how, for whom,
why and for what outcome is a designed EEP. As also being addressed by Jones and Matlay
(2011), there are a growing number of demands into the entrepreneurship education.
Previous research provides design of EEP which could contribute to the challenge of
organizing entrepreneurial skills and transform it into a teachable syllabus (Aronsson,
2004). Another research concerns the effectiveness of entrepreneurship which at the end
recommended by entrepreneurial learning from practice (Jones, 2010). Fayolle et al. (2006)
interestingly created a model to assess EEP based on theory of planned behavior and
several variables of EEP such as institutional setting, audiences, category, purposes,
substances and teaching methodologies. Furthermore, Fayolle and Gailly (2008) mentioned
factors of EEP which can be differentiated into inputs of a system, educational processes
and outputs, where the educational process includes the program’s objectives, audiences,
assessments, contents and methods of teaching.
Responding to the recognition of the importance entrepreneurship education, higher
institution across the world formulated EEP and supplemented the student with
entrepreneurship course. In Indonesia, the concept of entrepreneurship education has been
adopted and integrated into the educational curriculum. Bandung is one of the cities in
Indonesia as a center of education; there are about 80 universities in Bandung, so Bandung
can be a region that represents universities in Indonesia.
Currently, the contribution of EEP remains a debate, especially related to the
sustainability of student entrepreneurship activities. According to Lackéus (2016), often
educators work with co-creation in their teaching but have no context to reflect, analyze and
conceptualize creative practices with them. Thus, in an effort to fill the gap, this study aims
to analyze the role of inputs and processes to the output of EEPs as a value creation in
universities in Bandung, Indonesia. The input here is related to the institutional setting,
audience and type. The process includes the objective, content and teaching method.
Meanwhile, output is represented by entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit and
entrepreneurial behavior. This study will focus on addressing how the entrepreneurship
education itself administered as several researchers mentioned is relatively scarce (Bennett,
2006; Fayolle and Gailly, 2008; Pittaway and Cope, 2007; Samwel Mwasalwiba, 2010;
Solomon, 2007). This research uses quantitative method with survey approach to students in
several universities in Bandung, Indonesia. This study contributes empirically to display
JSTPM the implementation of entrepreneurship education in universities in Indonesia and
9,3 recommend a more adaptable structural entrepreneurship education for promoting
entrepreneurship.

2. Literature review
Entrepreneurship has social significance as “the most potential economic power that the
298 world has ever experienced” (Kuratko, 2005). This is in line with Mayhew et al. (2012) which
explained that economic welfare is what matter the most for a nation if it is compared with
the effective application of innovations, even though innovation also has crucial for the
economic growth. Shepherd and Douglas (1997) define entrepreneurship education as in:
The core of entrepreneurship is the ability to imagine and map courses for new business ventures
by combining information from the functional disciplines and the external environment in the
context of the uncertainty and ambiguity that new businesses are facing. It manifests itself in
creative strategies, innovative tactics, trend perceptions, and tremendous market demand
changes, courageous leadership when the way forward is not obvious and so on. What we teach
in our entrepreneurship classes should serve to instill and enhance these abilities.
Matlay (2008) argued that there is variability in term of entrepreneurship courses. It
mentioned the advancement of entrepreneurship education which initially integrated into
primarily conventional business modules. He also contends that entrepreneurship program
is provided at numerous phases and length. The purpose of entrepreneurship education
vary to the degree where entrepreneurship education has an impact in terms of generating
entrepreneurial skills; however, it is heavily relied on whether entrepreneurship can be
cultivated and learned. Entrepreneurship education at universities aims to integrate
entrepreneurial traits with entrepreneurship processes and entrepreneurship behavior
(Heinonen and Poikkijoki, 2006) through the learning process by providing an effective EEP.
Entrepreneurship education not only focuses on the transfer of knowledge about business
and management but also tries to change the mindset of students in developing new ways of
thinking, attitude, competence and behavior (Gibb and Hannon, 2006; Henry et al., 2005;
Sánchez, 2011). It shows that some aspects of entrepreneurship can be taught and studied so
as to challenge the myth that entrepreneurs are born and not made (Kuratko, 2003;
Sarasvathy and Venkataraman, 2011).
Many scholars agree that higher entrepreneurship education should have an
experimental learning perspective along with some kind of interactive pedagogy to enhance
learning and innovative capacity (Barrett and Peterson, 2000; Collins et al., 2006; Honig,
2004; Johannisson et al., 1998; Stevenson and Lundström, 2007; Vinten and Alcock, 2004;
Yballe and O’Connor, 2000). Gibb (1996) proposes a teaching approach to connect conceptual
knowledge with entrepreneurial behaviors with several key elements: focus on the delivery
process, ownership of learning by participants, learning from mistakes, negotiable learning
goals and session’s adjustment and flexibility. Previous research has much discussed about
the growing number of entrepreneurship education emerging in universities. There is also a
trend of looking at the learning process of entrepreneurial education curricula (Vesper and
Gartner, 1997) and rigorously at the content of the program (DeTienne and Chandler, 2004;
Fiet, 2001; Honig, 2004; Shepherd, 2004). Recently, the trend is shifting to try to combine
concepts, practices and the real world of what entrepreneurs actually do and how they learn
(Harmeling and Sarasvathy, 2013).
The new value creation strand has a long history in entrepreneurship research (Cantillon,
1755; Say, 1803; Ronstadt, 1984). According to Spohrer and Maglio (2008), value co-creation
defined as a collection of value that people mostly prefer as the consequence of exchanging
information, deliberate communication or any other purposeful and knowledge-intensive Education
interaction. Gartner (1990) identifies the new values creation as the main focus of program as
entrepreneurship in the subjective view of entrepreneurial researchers, business leaders and
politicians. Meanwhile, Bruyat (1993) proposed a definition of value creation for
value creation
entrepreneurship based on two dimensions, namely, novelty value created and the impact of
processes on the individual. Value co-creation facilitates entrepreneurship education to have
a comprehensive understanding of expected processes and results. Fayolle (2007) has hinted
that values “relate to exchanges between market players and market-determined prices”. 299
Hindle (2010) has outlined a more pluralistic but equally brief view by stating that “new
value may take many forms: economic, social, monetary, ecological, mental, physical, etc”.
EEP contains numerous constituents, encompassing learning material (Neck and Greene,
2011), and planned to reach its purposes (Jones and English, 2004). Fayolle and Gailly (2008)
claimed that EEP which based on the teaching design or framework which are “rarely used
in the entrepreneurship field [since] there is no common framework or agreed on good
practices regarding how to teach or educate”. Although the view of value creation may be
sufficient when studying entrepreneurship separately, it does not provide enough guidance
to educational institutions and other stakeholders when the goal is to instill
entrepreneurship education as a new value creation. In this study, we use the framework
developed by Fayolle et al. (2006) for being considered appropriate and noteworthy, wherein
EEP consists of institutional setting, audience, type of EEP, objectives, contents, teaching
and training methods and teaching and training approaches. We divide the framework into
inputs, processes and outputs (Figure 1).
However, research related to entrepreneur education in Indonesia is relatively scarce.
The entrepreneurship context is also hardly used for the expansion of economic activity.
According to Hadi et al. (2015), the solution of the shortage entrepreneurs is nurturing the
students as soon as possible to exploit their potency, and importantly to introduce and instill
the spirit of entrepreneurs. Another study carried out by Goldstein et al. (2016) pointed out
that the difference of gender, culture and socio-capital condition affected the entrepreneurial
mindset which eventually would also influence their entrepreneurial spirit and business
performance. In addition, Christina et al. (2015) mentioned that the need of exploring other
variables which affect the entrepreneur business outcomes in a different institution, as each
institution has their own characteristics. According to Wiratno (2012), the implementation of
entrepreneurship programs in various universities in Indonesia has not been optimal and
has not had the same minimum standards in the operationalization of its implementation.
Despite completing entrepreneurship courses, most graduates are still job-oriented and have
long waiting periods (Handriani, 2011).
Value creation in entrepreneurship education not only is the success of students in
creating business but also expands the entrepreneurial knowledge of students so as to have

Figure 1.
Research conceptual
model
JSTPM entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial behavior. We recognize
9,3 that EEPs are very important because they attract attention in learning the entrepreneurial
process. Thus, EEPs must be comprehensively integrated to create value for their students,
including inputs, processes and outputs. This study aims to analyze the role of inputs and
processes to the output of EEPs as a value creation in universities in Bandung, Indonesia.
Based on the synthesis of literature, we propose this research hypothesis as follows:
300 H1. Input has a positive and significant effect on the output of EEPs.

H2. Input has a positive and significant effect on the process of EEPs.

H3. Processes have a positive and significant effect on the output of EEPs.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample
The population of this study includes all students in the universities in Bandung, Indonesia.
Based on data of the 2016 annual report of the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher
Education of Indonesia, the number of active students in West Java counted 643,229
students. Bandung is one of the areas in West Java as the center of education city. In
addition, Bandung is also awarded “Natamukti Nindya” as a city with the development of
the best small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia according to the assessment of
the Indonesian Small Business Council (ICSB) and the Ministry of Cooperatives and SMEs,
so the environment in Bandung is very supportive to start a new business (Pikiran Rakyat,
2016; Aldianto et al., 2017). This research uses probability sampling method with random
sampling technique. The number of samples in the study was determined based on the
Slovin formula, with a percentage error of 10 per cent. Based on the calculation, the
minimum sample that can be used in this study as many as 100 respondents. However,
overall, 222 respondents participated in the survey.

3.2 Data collection and measurement

This study aims to analyze the influence of inputs and processes on the output of EEPs in
universities in Bandung. This research uses quantitative method. Creswell (2009) defines
quantitative research as an attempt to explain a phenomenon by collecting data and
analyzed using mathematical or statistical methods/tests. In this study, data were collected
through explanatory survey method by including some variables studied: input, process and
output of EEP. Input consists of factors including institutional setting, audience and type.
Meanwhile, the process consists of factors including objectives, content and teaching
method. Then, the output of EEP consists of factors including entrepreneurial knowledge,
entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial behavior. The data source is divided into primary
and secondary data. Primary data obtained through a set of questionnaires as a measuring
tool, while secondary data based on information from the literature and other supporting
documents.
Questionnaires are distributed by visiting and explaining directly to the targeted
respondents. Approximately 400 sets of questionnaires have been distributed, of which only
222 are returned, so the response rate is 55.5 per cent. The questionnaire consists of two
parts, the first part to identify the profile of the respondent, while the second part identifies
the responses of respondents to all research variables. This study promotes three variables,
namely, the output of EEPs as the dependent variable, the process as intervening variable
and input as independent variable. Measurements use the five-point Likert scale ranging Education
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). program as
Then, the validity and reliability test is performed by using confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) to assess the construct validity of the proposed measurement theory. Data were
value creation
processed by using structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed hypothesis.
SEM analysis is used because the proposed model consists of several interrelated
relationships. In addition, SEM analysis also has the ability to demonstrate unobserved
concepts and the relationships therein and calculation of measurement errors in the 301
estimation process (Hair et al., 1998).

4. Results and analysis

4.1 Respondent profile
Table I shows the profile of respondents based on a survey of 222 active students at several
universities in Bandung, Indonesia. The profile description is discussed in the next section.
Based on gender, it can be seen that the respondents who participated in this study were
almost equal between women and men, of which women were 50.9 per cent and men 49.1 per
cent. It shows that gender does not affect the enthusiasm of respondents to the
implementation of an effective EEP in university. Based on the age profile, it can be seen
that the majority of respondents are 20-25 years old. The age range is the normal age of a
person to pursue of university in Indonesia. Meanwhile, based on educational background,
respondents who participated in this study were students with an engineering background
of 86 per cent. Meanwhile, respondents with non-engineering backgrounds were 14 per cent.
This suggests that assumptions on a scientific background do not affect student intention in
supporting university to provide effective EEPs.
Based on survey results, respondents who have a family background as an entrepreneur
of 59.4 per cent. Meanwhile, respondents from non-entrepreneur families accounted for 40.6
per cent. Based on business ownership, as many as 45 per cent of respondents have a
business, where the types of business they have are start-ups, joint venture, online shop, etc.
Meanwhile, 55 per cent have no business yet. In addition, the questions of planning become
an entrepreneur after graduation is also given to the respondents, of which 20.3 per cent of
respondents expressed interest in becoming an entrepreneur after graduation. Meanwhile,

No. Characteristics of respondents Category Frequency (%)

1 Gender Male 113 50.9

Female 109 49.1
2 Respondent’s age <15 years 0 0
15-20 years 51 23
20-25 years 169 76.1
> 25 years 2 0.9
3 Education background Engineering 191 86
Non Engineering 31 14
(Social, Management,
etc.)
4 Family background Entrepreneur 132 59.4
Non Entrepreneur 90 40.6
5 Business ownership (start-up, Yes 100 45
joint venture, online shop, etc.) No 122 55 Table I.
6 Planning become an entrepreneur Yes 20 20.3 Profile of
after graduation No 202 79.7 respondents
JSTPM 79.7 per cent said they did not plan to become entrepreneurs. It shows an interesting
9,3 phenomenon to be examined further, where the majority of respondents have
entrepreneurial family backgrounds and business ownership, but most of them do not have
planning to become entrepreneur after graduation. Thus, further analysis conducted in this
research is to analyze the influence of inputs and processes on the output of EEPs.

302
4.2 Measurement model
Table II is the result of the overall model fit measurement. Table II shows that NFI and
CFI
0.90 indicate a good fit. The result of RMSEA is 0.107
0.08, which indicates not a
good fit. The AGFI score is 0.85 # 0.90, indicating a marginal fit (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1984). Meanwhile, the SRMSR score of 0.028 # 0.05 indicates a good fit. Although the
RMSEA indicates not a good fit, most of the measurements indicate a good fit, so we can
conclude the overall model fit.
After analyzing the overall model fit, the measurement model is analyzed. Table III
shows three indicators of input variables that are significantly related and can represent the
underlying concept of the construct. Validity test on these three indicators resulted in
loading factor (
0.50) and t-values (
1.96). In other words, inputs on EEPs provided by
universities in Bandung include audience, institutional setting and type. Reliability test is
performed to measure the consistency of each latent variable. The reliability test on the
input variables resulted score of construct reliability (CR; 0.90
0.70) and variance
extracted (VE; 0.71
0.50). In short, the variable has a good consistency (Table III).
In addition, three indicators passed the validity test on the process variable because it
meets the requirements of loading factor (
0.50) and t-values (
1.96). The result, hence,
identifies the process of EEPs in universities in Bandung that include objectives, content
and teaching methods. Then, the reliability test resulted CR (
0.70) and VE (
0.50).
Furthermore, output variable of the EEP show three indicators to pass the validity test by
meeting the requirements of loading factor (
0.50) and t-values (
1.96). The indicators

Table II. R2 dF RMSEA SRMSR NFI CFI AGFI

Goodness of fit index
of model 78.88 24 0.102 0.028 0.98 0.98 0.85

Latent variables Manifest variables SLF t-value CR VE

Output Entrepreneurial knowledge 0.87 ** 0.940 0.840

Entrepreneurial apirit 0.89 19.18
Entrepreneurial behavior 0.91 19.97
Process Objective 0.82 ** 0.906 0.763
Content 0.90 17.44
Teaching method 0.90 17.51
Input Audience 0.75 12.93 0.919 0.791
Institutional setting 0.83 15.03
Table III.
Type 0.89 16.66
Measurement of
manifest variable Notes: **LISREL default, the t-values is not estimated. Target of t-values
1.96 and the correlation of
and latent variable manifest variable are significant at the 0.01 level
include entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial behavior. Education
Then, reliability test resulted CR (
0.70) and VE (
0.50). program as
The next step is to measure the correlation between independent variables (input) and
dependent variable (process and output of EEP) by conducting path analysis. The results
value creation
showed that the input has a coefficient value of 0.98 with t-values of 14.46
1.96, so H1
supported that the input is proven positively and significantly effect on the process of EEPs
at universities in Bandung. H2 indicates that input has negative coefficient value of 1.86
with t-values of 1.25 # 1.96, so H2 is not supported that input proved have positive and 303
significant effect on the output of EEP at universities in Bandung. Meanwhile, H3 indicates
that process has a coefficient score of 2.84 with a t-values of 1.98
1.96, so H3 supported
that the process is proven positively and significantly effect on the output of EEPs at
universities in Bandung. Based on the score of determination, indicates that 96 per cent of
process variables are explained by input variables, while 86 per cent of output variables are
explained by input variables (Figures 2 and 3).

5. Discussion and conclusion

Higher education plays an important role in stimulating economic growth through research
relevant to industry needs, technological commercialization, high-tech development and
instilling the entrepreneurial mindset to students (Wong et al., 2007). The current
phenomenon shows that entrepreneurship is a discipline that can be learned and taught.
Thus, universities play a role in motivating students and providing EEPs in the learning
process in an effort to increase the number of young entrepreneurs. Based on the results of
this study, several factors are identified in influencing the output of EEPs, namely, inputs
and processes. This study aims to test the output of EEPs implementation at universities in
Bandung based on the previous conceptual model of research conducted by Aldianto et al.
(2017), where the framework refers to the results of the Fayolle et al. (2006) study.
Factors influencing inputs on EEPs include institutional setting, audience and type. The
results show that the factors which form the input of EEPs are relevant. Based on the results
of study, universities in Bandung have provided EEPs as compulsory courses that must be
taken by all students. The university prepares an entrepreneurship education curriculum

Figure 2.
Measurement model/
outer model
JSTPM
9,3

304

Figure 3.
Structural model
(inner model)

which generally contains materials and activities related to building an entrepreneurial

mental attitude, training in communicating skills, building networks and designing a profit-
oriented business plan. According to Ramadani et al. (2017), the role of knowledge spillovers
is strongly related with the improvement of the firm performance. So it supports the
students’ knowledge in developing their business. The results of entrepreneurship education
research showed that creative-oriented curriculum and entrepreneurial spirit formation need
to be developed in education (Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2010a). In addition,
universities play a role in the process of internalizing entrepreneurial values, improvement
of skills (transfer knowledge) in aspects of marketing, finance and technology; and
entrepreneurial support (business setup) (Vallini and Simoni, 2009). Universities are also
expected to facilitate students in developing entrepreneurship such as providing business
incubators and funding access assistance.
Furthermore, the factors that affect the process of EEPs include the object, content and
teaching method. The learning process of entrepreneurship education can be seen based on
the curriculum and the content of the program (DeTienne and Chandler, 2004; Fiet, 2001;
Honig, 2004; Shepherd, 2004). The objectives of entrepreneurship education are to provide
comprehensive knowledge to students how to build and run a business through the course.
Thus, students are expected to have the ability/competence in entrepreneurship, and
ultimately able to establish independent business. Based on research conducted by Ranie
and Anggadwita (2016), that persistence, skills and competencies, and GPA have a
significant effect on the success of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship education in
universities aims to build entrepreneurial character, entrepreneurial mindset and
entrepreneurial behavior, create added value, take advantage of opportunities and dare to
take risks (Susilaningsih, 2015). Meanwhile, according to Ratten (2016) that risk taking is an
important characteristic of entrepreneurs as an integral part of the entrepreneurial process
because of its ability to balance business with potential-related costs. Such behavior
indicates that the entrepreneur must have the courage and readiness to face potential risks.
In teaching method, entrepreneurship learning process is conducted by conventional
teaching in class with slides and presentation, beside that lecturers also convey learning that
can assist students in forming business prototype like business model and how to prepare Education
business proposal. Traditional teaching methods are still prevalent for entrepreneurship program as
education (Solomon, 2007). Teaching method on entrepreneurship education also facilitates
students to get an entrepreneurial network, such as sharing with practitioners or industrial
value creation
workers. It shows that entrepreneurship education should be more action-oriented (Higgins
and Elliott, 2011).
Then, the factors that influence the output of EEPs include entrepreneurship knowledge,
entrepreneurship spirit and entrepreneurship behavior. Entrepreneurship education should 305
pay attention to the output, where the process of transfer of knowledge runs effectively so
that students have the ability related to entrepreneurship and succeeded in growing the
spirit and intention to become entrepreneur (Jensen, 2014; Hadi et al., 2015; Goldstein et al.,
2016). It shows that entrepreneurship education creates new values and impacts on
individual processes (Bruyat, 1993). Value creation can be seen based on the output of EEPs,
where students have the knowledge, spirit and behavior that ultimately leads to student
intentions to build the business.
There are several hypotheses proposed in this study. The test results indicate that the
variables and indicators used in this study have good validity and reliability. Hypothesis
test shows that inputs proved to have positive and significant effect on the process of EEP.
The processes also proved to have positive and significant effect on the output of EEP. The
EEP process in this study includes objective, content and teaching method. It shows that the
EEP process has been applied by universities in Bandung to produce the expected output of
forming entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial spirit and entrepreneurial behavior in
the students. Meanwhile, the results show that the inputs have negative and insignificant
effect on the output of EEP. This is probably because the synergy between the university
and related stakeholders has not been integrated, thus creating a lack of entrepreneurial
enthusiasm and motivation of students. The input of EEP in this study includes institutional
setting, audience and type. Institutional settings are related to university readiness in
providing EEP, including entrepreneurship as compulsory courses, preparing appropriate
curricula and adequate facilities such as entrepreneurial practice, business incubation,
access to finance and the legality process in support of entrepreneurship. It does not seem to
be maximally done by the university, and such conditions resulted in university graduates
only understand the business at the theory level (Dikpora DIY, 2013). Audience is related to
the enthusiasm and interest of students toward EEP provided by educational institutions.
Based on the results of this study, it can be seen that the majority of students do not plan to
become entrepreneurs after graduation, the mindset issue can also be an obstacle to the
success of EEP output where many students still think to be job seekers, compared to work
creators (Dikpora DIY, 2013). Meanwhile, the type related with the type of learning provided
by institutions such as courses, seminars, training and competition. It is an effort to provide
more insight to students by inviting successful entrepreneurs to share knowledge and
experience. However, it also seems to have not been fully done by all educational
institutions, so that entrepreneurship education is still viewed as a theory course that is
taught to students in the classroom. It shows that there is still no common agreement in the
framework of EEPs on how to teach or educate (Fayolle and Gailly, 2008).
Looking at the whole research, there is a need to further explore the potential of EEPs at
universities in Indonesia. EEP is implemented to cultivate entrepreneurship spirit to the
students, which is expected to integrate synergy between the mastery of science and
technology with entrepreneurial spirit (Dikpora DIY, 2013). Thus, overall, there should be
integration between input, process and output of EEPs in Indonesian universities. Based on
Hue Kyung et al. (2016), R&D funding provided by the government can improve
JSTPM performance in university-industry cooperation; in addition, the university should be able to
9,3 expand its research and cooperation capacity with the Licensing Technical Office (TLO). It
shows that synergy between stakeholders is needed to increase the output of EEP at
university level. Further studies can identify the possible support of various stakeholders,
including governments and universities, to explore EEPs with reference to the results of this
study.
306
References
Aldianto, E., Anggadwita, G. and Umbara, A.N. (2017), “Mapping entrepreneurship education program:
case study of higher education institutions in bandung, Indonesia”, Presented at 2nd
International Conference on Organizational Performance Excellence (iCOPE), Bandung.
Aronsson, M. (2004), “Education matters—but does entrepreneurship education? An interview with
David Birch”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 289-292.
Barrett, F.J. and Peterson, R. (2000), “Appreciative learning cultures: developing competencies for
global organizing”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2, p. 10.
Bennett, R. (2006), “Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 165-188.
Bruyat, C. (1993), “Création d’entreprise: contributions épistémologiques et modélisation”, Doctoral
dissertation, Université Pierre Mendès-France-Grenoble II, Paris.
Cantillon, R. (1755), Essay on the Nature of General Commerce, in Higgs, H. (trans.), Macmllan, London.
Christina, W., Purwoko, H. and Kusumowidagdo, A. (2015), “The role of entrepreneur in residence
towards the students’ entrepreneurial performance: a study of entrepreneurship learning process
at Ciputra University, Indonesia”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 211, pp. 972-976.
Collins, L.A., Smith, A.J. and Hannon, P.D. (2006), “Applying a synergistic learning approach in
entrepreneurship education”, Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 335-354.
Creswell, J.W. (2009), “Mapping the field of mixed methods research”, Journal of Mixed Methods
Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-108.
DeTienne, D.R. and Chandler, G.N. (2004), “Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial
classroom: a pedagogical approach and empirical test”, Academy of Management Learning &
Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 242-257.
Dikpora DIY (2013), “Relevansi pendidikan kewirausahaan di perguruan tinggi”, Dinas Pendidikan,
Pemuda, & Olahraga Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, available at: www.pendidikan-diy.go.id/
dinas_v4/?view=v_artikel&id=17
Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi (2010a), Pedoman Program Kreatifitas Mahasiswa, Direktur
Penelitian dan Pengabdian kepada Masyarakat Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi,
Depdiknas. Jakarta.
Fayolle, A. (2007), Entrepreneurship and New Value Creation: The Dynamic of the Entrepreneurial
Process, Cambridge university press, Cambridge.
Fayolle, A. (2013), “ Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education”, Entrepreneurship &
Regional Development, Vol. 25 Nos 7/8, pp. 692-701.
Fayolle, A. and Gailly, B. (2008), “From craft to science: teaching models and learning processes in
entrepreneurship education”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 569-593.
Fayolle, A., Gailly, B. and Lassas-Clerc, N. (2006), “Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education
programmes: a new methodology”, Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 30 No. 9,
pp. 701-720.
Fiet, J.O. (2001), “The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory”, Journal of Business Venturing,
Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 101-117.
Gartner, W.B. (1990), “What are we talking about when we talk about entrepreneurship?”, Journal of Education
Business Venturing, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
program as
Gibb, A.A. (1996), “Entrepreneurship and small business management: can we afford to neglect
them in the twenty-first century business school?”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 7
value creation
No. 4, pp. 309-321.
Gibb, A. and Hannon, P. (2006), “Towards the entrepreneurial university”, International Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 73-110.
Goldstein, B.L., Ick, M., Ratang, W., Hutajulu, H. and Blesia, J.U. (2016), “Using the action research
307
process to design entrepreneurship education at Cenderawasih University”, Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 228, pp. 462-469.
Hadi, C., Wekke, I.S. and Cahaya, A. (2015), “Entrepreneurship and education: creating business
awareness for students in East Java Indonesia”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Vol. 177, pp. 459-463.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harmeling, S.S. and Sarasvathy, S.D. (2013), “When contingency is a resource: educating entrepreneurs
in the balkans, the bronx, and beyond”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 713-744.
Higgins, D. and Elliott, C. (2011), “Learning to make sense: what works in entrepreneurial education?”,
Journal of European Industrial Training, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 345-367.
Honig, B. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business
planning”, Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-273.
Jensen, T.L. (2014), “A holistic person perspective in measuring entrepreneurship education impact –
social entrepreneurship education at the humanities”, The International Journal of Management
Education, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 349-364.
Johannisson, B., Landstrom, H. and Rosenberg, J. (1998), “University training for entrepreneurship – an
action frame of reference”, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 477-496.
Jones, C. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: revisiting our role and its purpose”, Journal of Small
Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 500-513.
Jones, C. and English, J. (2004), “A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education”, Educationþ
Training, Vol. 46 Nos 8/9, pp. 416-423.
Jones, C. and Matlay, H. (2011), “Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: going
beyond gartner”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 53 Nos 8/9, pp. 692-703.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1984), LISREL VI: User’s Guide, Scientific Software. Inc. Google
Scholar, Mooresville, IN.
Kuratko, D.F. (2003), “Entrepreneurship education: Emerging trends and challenges for the 21st
century”. White Paper, US Association of Small Business Education, 22, 2003.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), “The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and
challenges”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 577-598.
Handriani, E. (2011), “Pengembangan kualitas pendidikan kewirausahaan di perguruan tinggi”, Jurnal
Ilmiah Inkoma, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 83-95.
Heinonen, J. and Poikkijoki, S.A. (2006), “An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship
education: mission impossible?”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 80-94.
Henry, C., Hill, F. and Leitch, C. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education and training: can entrepreneurship
be taught? part I”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 98-111.
Hindle, K. (2010), “Skillful dreaming: testing a general model of entrepreneurial process with a specific
narrative of venture creation”, Entrepreneurial Narrative: Theory, Ethnomethodology and
Reflexivity, Vol. 1, pp. 101-139.
JSTPM Hue Kyung, L., Hyun Duk, Y., Si Jeoung, K. and Yoon Kyo, S. (2016), “Factors affecting university–
industry cooperation performance: study of the mediating effects of government and
9,3 enterprise support”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 233-254.
Lackéus, M. (2016). “Value creation as educational practice-towards a new educational philosophy
grounded in Entrepreneurship?”, Doctoral dissertation, Chalmers University of Technology,
Göteborg.
308
Lackéus, M. and Williams Middleton, K. (2015), “Venture creation programs: bridging entrepreneurship
education and technology transfer”, Education and Training, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 48-73.
Mahieu, R. (2006). “Agents of change and policies of scale: a policy study of entrepreneurship and
enterprise in education”, Doctoral dissertation, Svenska och samhällsvetenskapliga ämnen.
Matlay, H. (2008), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial outcomes”, Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 382-396.
Mayhew, M.J., Simonoff, J.S., Baumol, W.J., Wiesenfeld, B.M. and Klein, M.W. (2012), “Exploring
innovative entrepreneurship and its ties to higher educational experiences”, Research in Higher
Education, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 831-859.
Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011), “Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Pikiran Rakyat (2016), “Natamukti Nindya, Penghargaan untuk Kinerja Ridwan Kamil Bagi UMKM”,
available at: www.pikiran-rakyat.com/bandung-raya/2016/11/30/natamukti-nindya-penghargaan-
untuk-kinerja-ridwan-kamil-bagi-umkm-386285 (accessed May 2017).
Pittaway, L. and Cope, J. (2007), “Entrepreneurship education: a systematic review of the evidence”,
International Small Business Journal, Vol. 25 No. 5, pp. 479-510.
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2012), “Enterprise and Entrepreneurship Education”, Guidance for
UK Higher Education Providers.
Ramadani, V., Abazi-Alili, H., Dana, L.P., Rexhepi, G. and Ibraimi, S. (2017), “The impact of knowledge
spillovers and innovation on firm-performance: findings from the Balkans countries”,
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 299-325.
Ranie, S.F. and Anggadwita, G. (2016), “The analysis of the correlation between academic success and
the entrepreneurial success in Telkom University”, International Journal of Basic and Applied
Science, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 1-8.
Ratten, V. (2016), “Female entrepreneurship and the role of customer knowledge development,
innovation outcome expectations and culture on intentions to start informal business
ventures”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 27 Nos 2/3,
pp. 262-272.
Ronstadt, R. (1984), Training Potential Entrepreneurs, Division of Research, Harvard Business School,
New York, NY.
Sánchez, J.C. (2011), “University training for entrepreneurial competencies: its impact on intention of
venture creation”, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 239-254.
Samwel Mwasalwiba, E. (2010), “Entrepreneurship education: a review of its objectives, teaching
methods, and impact indicators”, Educationþ Training, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 20-47.
Sarasvathy, S.D. and Venkataraman, S. (2011), “Entrepreneurship as method: open questions for an
entrepreneurial future”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 113-135.
Say, J.B. (1803), “Of the demand or market for products”, Critics of Keynesian Economics, Arlington
House, New Rochelle (NY), pp. 12-22.
Shepherd, D.A. (2004), “Educating entrepreneurship students about emotion and learning from failure”,
Academy of Management Learning & Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 274-287.
Shepherd, D.A. and Douglas, E.J. (1997). “Is management education developing, or killing, the Education
entrepreneurial spirit”, Proceedings of the 1997 USASBE Annual National Conference
Entrepreneurship: The Engine of Global Economic Development, San Francisco, CA, June. program as
Solomon, G. (2007), “An examination of entrepreneurship education in the United States”, Journal of value creation
Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 168-182.
Spohrer, J. and Maglio, P.P. (2008), “The emergence of service science: toward systematic service
innovations to accelerate co-creation of value”, Production and Operations Management, Vol. 17
No. 3, pp. 238-246. 309
Stevenson, L. and Lundström, A. (2007), “Dressing the emperor: the fabric of entrepreneurship policy”,
Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship Policy, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham,
pp. 94-129.
Susilaningsih (2015), “Pendidikan kewirausahaan di perguruan tinggi: Pentingkah untuk semua
profesi?”, Prosiding Seminar Nasional, pp. 850-858.
Vallini, C. and Simoni, C. (2009), “Market-driven management as entrepreneurial approach”,
Symphonya. Emerging Issues in Management, Vol. 1, pp. 26-39.
Vesper, K.H. and Gartner, W.B. (1997), “Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 12 No. 5, pp. 403-421.
Vinten, G. and Alcock, S. (2004), “Entrepreneuring in education”, International Journal of Educational
Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 188-195.
Williams Middleton, K.L. (2013), “Becoming entrepreneurial: gaining legitimacy in the nascent phase”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 404-424.
Wiratno, S. (2012), “Pelaksanaan pendidikan kewirausahaan di pendidikan tinggi”, Jurnal Pendidikan
dan Kebudayaan, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 454-466.
Wong, P.K., Ho, Y.P. and Singh, A. (2007), “Towards an ‘entrepreneurial university’ model to support
knowledge-based economic development: the case of the National University of Singapore”,
World Development, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 941-958.
Yballe, L. and O’Connor, D. (2000), “Appreciative pedagogy: constructing positive models for learning”,
Journal of Management Education, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 474-483.

Further reading
Bureau of Cooperation and Public Communication of the Secretariat General (2016), Annual Report
2016, Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of Indonesia.

Corresponding author
Grisna Anggadwita can be contacted at: grisnamailbox@yahoo.co.id

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com