Developing Entrepreneurial Characteristics in Youth: The Effects of Education and Enterprise Experience By Howard S. Rasheed, Ph.D.

University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave. BSN 3403 Tampa, FL 33617 813-974-1727 hrasheed@coba.usf.edu

Keywords: youth entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education Submitted to the International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education

greater self-esteem and more innovation than a comparable cohort. higher achievement motivation.ABSTRACT Identifying and nurturing entrepreneurial potential among youth can have long-term implications for American economic development. more personal control. Specifically. Students who participate in enterprise activities have greater overall entrepreneurial characteristics. and greater self-esteem than a comparable cohort. more personal control. This research concludes that entrepreneurship education and enterprise experience can affect characteristics commonly associated with entrepreneurs among intermediate level students. 4 . Prior research has not addressed whether education and enterprise experience will affect the development of entrepreneurial talent prior to the collegiate level. student with training in entrepreneurship have greater overall entrepreneurial characteristics.

there is research related to youth awareness and attitudes about the social and economic desirability of entrepreneurship as a career option (Kourilsky & Walstad. and educators. 1997). Prior research does not address whether entrepreneurial education or enterprise experience affects characteristics in youth 5 . Montago. 1980. 1995). Panigrahi. There are several basic streams of literature related to the effects of entrepreneurial education and venture creation on the development of youth. Thirdly. Littunen. 1995). Secondly. 1998. & Calcich. 1987. 1999). The recent introduction of the Future Entrepreneurs of America Act by Congress provides further evidence of the need for children and family economic empowerment and self-employment as a viable career option for young people. The role of quality entrepreneurship education and training in identifying and nurturing this entrepreneurial potential among youth is becoming apparent to students. Boyd & Vozikis. Hatten & Ruhland. Begley & Boyd. Hansemark.Developing Entrepreneurial Characteristics in Youth: The Effects of Education and Enterprise Experience The development of entrepreneurial talent is important to sustaining a competitive advantage in a global economy that is catalyzed by innovation. Walstad & Kourilsky. Research has theorized that the supply of entrepreneurs can be increased by developing a positive perception about the feasibility and desirability of entrepreneurship through educational preparation at an early age (Kourilsky. According to a recent Gallup poll of American high school students (as cited in Kourilsky & Carlson. by increasing business knowledge and promoting psychological attributes associated with entrepreneurs (Kruegar & Brazeal. 1999). 1998. entrepreneurial education develops entrepreneurs. Kourilsky & Walstad. & Scarella. 1994. there is learning theory associated with program content and the pedagogy of entrepreneurial development programs (Leitch & Harrison. 1998. there is a well establish body of research on the psychological characteristics associated with entrepreneurship (Brockhaus. Walstad & Kourilsky.1994. First. 1986. 1994. Finally. policy makers. When rooted in solid learning theory. 1999). there is empirical evidence supporting entrepreneurial education as an intervention tool for impacting adult attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Ede. Kuratko. 2000). 80% of high school students think that more entrepreneurship should be taught while 68% indicated a desire to learn more about entrepreneurship. 1998. 85% reported they knew little about business. Krueger & Brazeal.

influence entrepreneurial characteristics in youth? After establishing a theoretical framework for entrepreneurship pedagogy and entrepreneurial characteristics. this study also addresses the question: Does enterprise experience.attributable to entrepreneurial behavior. this study analyzes the following research question: Does entrepreneurial training of youth affect attributes commonly associated with entrepreneurial potential? Viewing a classroom enterprise as the experiential part of the training process. in addition to educational effects. Consequently. 6 . however. results from a study of 502 intermediate level students in an inner city public school will be used to address whether entrepreneurship education and experience are effective intervention strategies.

& Graham. 1997). Long. 1998). entrepreneurial education has been linked to the propensity toward entrepreneurship for adults (Gorman et al. effective youth entrepreneurship education prepares young people to be responsible. Entrepreneurship education generally refers to programs that promote entrepreneurship awareness for career purposes and provide skill training for business creation and development (Vesper. 1997).. 1998). a consensus on when educational intervention is most effective in developing entrepreneurial potential has not been clearly established. 1998). 1969. Bechard & Toulouse.Literature Review Entrepreneurship Education Prior research suggests that identifying and nurturing potential entrepreneurs throughout the education process could produce many long-term economic benefits (McClelland & Winter. For example. 1997. Hanlon. Entrepreneurship literature has considered the effectiveness of education at various stages of adulthood. However. could result in a lower unemployment rate. and fewer failures of existing businesses.. It is distinguishable from other forms of business education when its purpose is creating a new product or service that results in higher economic value (Hanesmark. Bechard & Toulouse. Specifically. 1990. Education can prepare for new venture initiation by transferring knowledge and developing relevant skills that improve the self-efficacy and effectiveness of the potential entrepreneur (Gorman et al. Hatten & Ruhland. & King. a venture support system based on entrepreneurship education designed to stimulate and facilitate entrepreneurial activities. enterprising individuals who become entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial thinkers and contribute to economic development and sustainable communities (Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education). More specifically. 1987). Research suggests that the propensity towards entrepreneurship has been associated with several personal characteristics that can be influenced by a formal program of education (Gorman. An inherent assumption in entrepreneurial education is that entrepreneurship characteristics and skills can be developed. Vesper (1990) suggested that university entrepreneurship educators facilitate the entrepreneurial process by creating awareness among collegiate 7 . 1995 & Hansemark. Entrepreneurship education can also be an important component of economic strategies for fostering job creation (McMullan. 1998). increased establishment of new companies.

leadership and creative thinking. Dunbar. Kourilsky & Walstad. and Mullen (1991) also argued for the benefits of behavioral simulations in teaching entrepreneurship. 1998. and Ede. Studies by Hanesmark (1998). enhance entrepreneurial propensity (Gorman et al. and theory-based practical applications. This curriculum uses active learning techniques. 1994. 1988). when the possibility of self-employment as a career option is still open. There are indications that the formal education system is not particularly supportive of entrepreneurship and possibly suppresses entrepreneurial characteristics (Chamard. Learning styles that include active experimentation. Kourilsky and Walstad (1998) suggested that stimulating entrepreneurial attitudes through education at the pre-collegiate level could encourage entrepreneurship as a career choice. which encourage students to absorb course materials by completing tasks that demonstrate reflection and elaboration on course content (Hammer. but only in terms of affecting the attitude toward entrepreneurship as a career alternative. Consistent with these pedagogical criteria. a popular youth entrepreneurship curriculum. & Calcich (1998) support the value of formal entrepreneurial education at the university level. Singh (1990) concluded that traditional pedagogy should be reoriented to emphasize and value entrepreneurship in order to cultivate an enterprise culture. 1999).. Gasse (1985) recommended that entrepreneurial potential should be identified and developed at the secondary school level. multi-disciplinary and process-oriented approaches. Hatten & Ruhland (1995). 2000). and promoting characteristics associated with entrepreneurs (Krueger & Brazeal. This learning style is distinguishable from traditional and 8 . McMullan and Long (1987) proposed that entrepreneurship education should include skill-building components such as negotiation. Panigrahi. balanced with concrete experience and abstract conceptualization. Entrepreneurial education based on solid learning theory can develop entrepreneurs by increasing business knowledge. 1989). Plaschka and Welsch (1990) introduced the concept of transition stages of entrepreneurship education suggesting programs geared toward creativity. teachers in this study used KidsWay. Entrepreneurship program should also teach skills in detecting and exploiting business opportunities. 1997). exposure to technological innovation and new product development. Walstad & Kourilsky. as well as incorporate detailed and long-term business planning (Vesper & McMullan. Kourilsky (1990) found that 25% of kindergartners demonstrate important entrepreneurial characteristics (need for achievement and risk taking) compared to 3% of high school students.students. Stumpf.

have produced good results for predicting whether a person will pursue entrepreneurship (Stewart. but not necessarily interchangeable. Kourilsky (1980) suggested the following are the most relevant: need for achievement.. Entrepreneurial Characteristics The literature on entrepreneurial characteristics has included a number of variables that address psychological attributes. Personal factors such as prior experience as an entrepreneur and contextual factors such as job displacement have limited applicability to entrepreneurial propensity among youth. 1998. creativity and initiative. A number of psychological attributes have been suggested as predictors of entrepreneurial behavior in the entrepreneurship literature. According to Robinson. In this study the experiential learning component was incorporated in some of the entrepreneurship classes where students developed and implemented a class-based enterprise. Psychological attributes. In contrast. 2000). this study groups them generically as entrepreneurial characteristics. and behavior. Stimpson. interspersed with group activities and games to reinforce learning objectives. Carland. 1999). Although prior research has debated whether entrepreneurial characteristics are innate. personality. on the other hand. Huefner. Individuals can be predisposed to entrepreneurial intentions based on a combination of personal and contextual factors (Boyd & Vozikis. 1994). Some of these variables are loosely coupled elements of the individual. this study presumes that these are universal and ageless characteristics that can be nurtured and developed at earlier stages of the education process (Kourilsky. Based on prior research.experiential methods because it includes mini-lectures of approximately 10 minutes in length. & Hunt (1991) demographic circumstances do not enhance our ability to predict entrepreneurial tendencies. recent findings support the idea that psychological attributes associated with entrepreneurship can be culturally and experientially acquired (Gorman et al. risk-taking and setting 9 . 1999. Kourilsky & Walstad. 1990. semi-structured experiential techniques involve completing a group task or project that uses real business situations as the context for learning (Hammer. Walstad & Kourilsky. with some degree of consensus. & Carland. To avoid a lengthy theoretical discussion to make these finer distinctions. Other personal and contextual factors attributable to entrepreneurs have generally been categorized as demographic characteristics and psychological attributes. 1997). Watson. attitudes.

and innovation in business can be effected by educational and enterprise intervention at the intermediate grade level. it is expected that it will influence entrepreneurial characteristics: Hypothesis 1b: Students engaged in classroom enterprise will attain a higher overall entrepreneurial characteristics score than a comparable cohort. However. personal goals. The first hypothesis proposes that a composite of these entrepreneurial characteristics varies between groups based on educational intervention: H1a: Students receiving entrepreneurial training will attain a greater overall entrepreneurial characteristics score than a comparable cohort. and preference for innovation than corporate managers and small business owners. Since classroom enterprise is considered the experiential part of the entrepreneurial pedagogy. and persistence. According to Gorman et al. et al. (1997) propensity toward entrepreneurship is associated with several personal characteristics: values and attitudes. (1991) conceptualization of the prominent characteristics of entrepreneurial propensity. The combination of these elements was expected to stimulate enterprising behavior. finding that entrepreneurs had higher achievement motivation. self-confidence and internal locus of control. Gibb (1993) proposed a model of enterprise education appropriate to primary and secondary school curricula that included a project management task structure. Sexton and Bowman (1983) concurred with Brockhaus (1980) that risk-taking propensities are not good predictors of entrepreneurial behavior. risk taking and locus of control as important characteristics. personal control of business outcomes. Prior experience as an entrepreneur has been linked with the propensity for adults to start a new venture (Boyd & Vozikis. this study considers whether achievement motivation in business. Huefner. Of the personal characteristics. perceived self-esteem in business. Following Robinson’s et al. and attributes in students. risk-taking propensity. McClelland (1961) proposed achievement motivation. and an enterprising teaching mode. need for independence and autonomy. skills. and Hunt’s (1991) argued that self-esteem and innovation are more prominent in entrepreneurs than the need for achievement. energy and commitment. 1994). creativity. and locus of control.objectives. Risk-taking may not apply to youth who have not undertaken significant economic risk and opportunity cost due to the loss of wages. Robinson. or wealth risk associated with business failure. Stimpson. 10 . risk-taking propensity. (1998) disagreed. In subsequent work Stewart. motivation.

Self-confidence and self-esteem are used as analogous terms in this research to address how an individual feels about there own ability. Hypothesis 3b: Students engaged in classroom enterprise will attain a higher personal control score than a comparable cohort.Achievement motivation. expecting to find that: Hypothesis 3a: Students receiving entrepreneurial training will attain a higher personal control score than a comparable cohort. entrepreneurs believe that the outcome of a business venture will be influenced by their own efforts. (1991) also suggested that 11 . Hansemark (1998) also found that young adults participating in an entrepreneurship program developed a more internal locus of control. Locus of Control reinforcement is related to the expectation of success or failure in a judgmental task (Rotter. 1961. People will attribute the reason why something happens either to themselves (internal) or to the external environment. achievement motivation is a consistent attribute. Since personal control is a more important element for youth than risk-taking. It is also a process of planning and striving for excellence (Hansemark. Of the many characteristics associated with entrepreneurs. therefore. Specifically related to achievement in business. 1966). Hansemark (1998) also found that young adults in an entrepreneurial program had a significant increase in their n Ach scores. McClelland (1965) maintained that founders of business have a higher level of need for achievement (n Ach) and suggested that this characteristic is an important factor for economic development and business growth. Hypothesis 2b: Students engaged in classroom enterprise will attain a higher need for achievement score than a comparable cohort. Self-esteem. Robinson et al. (1991) found that internal personal control leads to a positive entrepreneurial attitude. Robinson et al. this study proposes that: Hypothesis 2a: Students receiving entrepreneurial training will attain a higher need for achievement score than a comparable cohort. Brockhaus (1982) and Gasse (1985) found that entrepreneurs have greater internal locus of control than the general population. 1965). Kourilsky (1980) concluded that they are important variables in predicting entrepreneurial success. this research is consistent with Robinson et al. (1991) and uses personal control of business outcomes. Analogous to locus of control. The need for achievement is based on expectations of doing something better or faster than others or better than the person’s earlier accomplishments (McClelland. Personal Control. 1998).

is a prominent entrepreneurial characteristic. 1990. and to the 15 classes. particularly related to business affairs. Methods Sample The sample for this study was derived from intermediate level students in a Newark. Innovation. 1991. limits threats to external validity (Campbell & Stanley.. designated as the control group. 12 . Using Robinson et al. 1966). and it was found it to be a powerful predictor of success. this study proposes that: Hypothesis 5a: Students receiving entrepreneurial training will attain a higher innovation score than a comparable cohort. Kourilsky (1980) and Robinson et al. Plaschka & Welsch. Kourilsky (1980) defined persistence as the willingness to seek alternative approaches and problem-solving methods. as well as a manifestation of flexibility and divergent thinking. Procedures The treatment group engaged in an entrepreneurship training class for three hours each week for 26 weeks using KidsWay curriculum as an alternative intervention strategy for improving the academic status of an underachieving school population. KidsWay curriculum meets the pedagological criteria dictated in the literature for entrepreneurship education (Stumpf et al. methods. Students were randomly assigned to one of the 13 treatment classes engaged in entrepreneurship education and training. Innovation is defined as creating new products. (1991) proposed that innovation and creativity are important variables. This population includes nine schools and 28 classes ranging from grades 4 through 8. Hypothesis 4b: Students engaged in classroom enterprise will attain a higher self-esteem score than a comparable cohort. Hypothesis 5b: Students engaged in classroom enterprise will attain a higher innovation score than a comparable cohort.self-esteem. markets or a new organization. Using random assignment in a quasi-experimental design with non-equivalent control groups. therefore: Hypothesis 4a: Students receiving entrepreneurial training will attain a higher self-esteem score than a comparable cohort. Analogous to creativity. (1991) concept of innovation in business. NJ Public Schools district.

Gorman. Measures The 36-item entrepreneurial attitude survey measured the perceptions of the students relative to achievement. thereby limiting the possible confounding (placebo) effects of the experimental setting and threats to the external validity of the study. using a matching sample in a quasi-experimental research design. 1987. and behavioral simulations. 1997). The learning methodology includes active experimentation.6% Caucasian.Vesper & McMullan. 7 grade—15%. Frequency distribution by grades was: 4 grade—29%. Males represented 49. Usable data was obtained from 224 students in the treatment group and 176 students in the control group. McMullan & Long. The control group engaged in other non-academic classroom activities such as art and music during the same class period. self-esteem. The instrument was administered to a sample of 502 students in the 28 classes. The only modification to the instrument was to change the language within the items from business to classroom or project to relate more to the experiences of youth. Classes that did not have a match for the same grade level at the same school were dropped from the sample. concrete experience. Classes with special language needs or other unique educational characteristics were also eliminated. 1991). 6 th th th th th grade—23%. The skill-building component includes negotiation.4% Hispanic/Latin. The instrument was piloted using 50 intermediate level students attending a youth entrepreneurship conference and edited for age-appropriate wording. Students were asked to rate on a scale of “1” to “5” how strongly they felt about items related to each of these four factors.7% of the sample. leadership.4% no response).7% African American. 34. In this scale “1” 13 . Students were also taught how to detect and exploit business opportunities and long-term business planning. 3. Student entrepreneurial characteristics were measured using the Entrepreneurial Attitude Survey adopted from research on adult entrepreneurs (Robinson et al. and 8 grade—3%. 1988. An approximation was used to survey an equal number of grades from the same school..3% and females 50. personal control. and 4. for a response rate of 80%. exposure to technological innovation. The study sample consisted primarily of ethnic minority students (56. 1% Asian. and new product development. 5 grade—30%. This instrument was developed and validated with acceptable reliability measures for the four primary scales. using their feedback. and innovation. creative thinking.

Results support hypothesis 1a. supporting the absence of selection bias as a threat to internal validity (Campbell & Stanley. RACE. Item scores were summed to compute each factor score. Reliability factors. frequencies. comparing the scores of the four entrepreneurial characteristics and overall entrepreneurial attitude between the treatment and control groups. Results Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for the sample population including mean. were measured by nine survey items.05. exceed acceptable thresholds for internal validity of the dependent variables (Cohen & Cohen. Table 3 presents the results of the MANOVA.04) between the treatment and control groups. mean = 3. AGE was not significant in the two MANOVA models. 1975). age. Each main factor score was then summed to derive an overall entrepreneurial characteristic score labeled ATTITUDE.represented strongly disagree and “5” represented strongly agree. Students in the training treatment group who engaged in a classroom-based enterprise also had a significantly higher overall entrepreneurial score (p<. measured by Cronbach alphas. and bivariate Pearson correlations for the study variables. ESTEEM. AGE. The control variable. and INNOVATE. There are no indications of multicollinearity that would violate assumptions of independence. standard deviation. indicating a significant difference in overall entrepreneurial attitude scores (p<. Each of the four main factors ACHIEVE. Descriptive statistics. CLASS.05. one comparing entrepreneurial characteristics between the treatment and control group. The variable. Student who engaged in classroom enterprises were coded “VENTURE = 1”. with age as a covariate. and correlation analyses were performed on the data. Because of the moderate correlation between the dependent variables and the dependence of the two samples. and the other comparing classes in the treatment group that engaged in a classroombased enterprise with those who did not. GRADE. EDUCATE was coded “1” for the treatment group and “0” for the control group. GENDER. while others were coded “0”. mean 14 . CONTROL. two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed. 1966). The control variable. was introduced as a covariate. Data Analysis An independent sample t-test indicated there were no significant differences in mean scores for the variables: SCHOOL. and GROUP (elementary and middle school) between the students in the treatment and control groups.

15 . supporting hypothesis 1b. Also. as proposed in hypothesis 4b. as proposed in hypotheses 1a and 1b. mean = . mean = 1. 1965). Since a link between achievement motivation and entrepreneurial propensity has been established. Hypothesis 2a which proposed that ACHIEVE scores would be higher for students receiving training is supported (p< .96).27). there was a significant difference in CONTROL scores in favor of the students trained in entrepreneurship (p< . In general.73) in favor of the group trained in entrepreneurship. the results specifically indicate that students receiving entrepreneurial training have higher motivation to achieve than a comparable cohort.. by extending this theory to students at the intermediate level. as an intervention strategy for young students. finding that a composite of entrepreneurial characteristics was significantly greater for students engaged in entrepreneurial training and a classroom-based enterprise.23). This research provides empirical evidence to support these claims. mean = 1. Comparing similar treatment and control groups.89). These findings suggest that by providing entrepreneurial education at an early age a student’s need for achievement could increase.05.05. trained students who engaged in a classroom-based enterprise scored higher in CONTROL (p< . Discussion And Conclusions The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of entrepreneurship training and enterprise on the entrepreneurial characteristics of intermediate level students. as proposed in hypothesis 4b. As proposed in hypothesis 3a. Trained students who also engaged in a classroom-based enterprise had higher ESTEEM scores (p< . supporting hypothesis 4a. supporting hypothesis 5b.05. There was a significant difference in INNOVATE scores (p< . 1998). mean = 1. has positive benefits. There have been many anecdotal claims that entrepreneurial training and enterprise creation. this intervention could affect self-employment tendencies as an adult (McClelland.05. mean = .05. mean = . Furthermore this research suggests that entrepreneurial characteristics are universal. these results support the theory that entrepreneurial characteristics can be affected by instructional and experiential intervention (Gorman et al. Bechard & Toulouse. 1997.34) in favor of the treatment group that engaged in a classroom-based enterprise. Results indicate a significant difference in ESTEEM scores (p< .= 4.35).05.

Student with more personal control are less likely to resolve conflict and express anger through violence. but this research concludes that training and enterprising behavior can have a significant impact on entrepreneurial characteristics. The investment in entrepreneurship for youth should. the findings may not be generalizable to the general student population at the intermediate level. Because the sample is predominately ethnic minorities in a low-income urban setting. This paper presents the initial findings of this study related to the effects of entrepreneurship training and enterprise experience on entrepreneurial characteristics. may result in students taking more responsibility for what happens to them. Internal personal control and higher self-esteem. What is important to note is that entrepreneurship education alone. Student who received training and engaged in a classroom-based enterprise demonstrated higher scores on innovation than a comparable cohort. The results make a strong link between enterprise and innovation. the application to youth confirms the universal nature of these concepts. This study has provided support for theories related to entrepreneurial characteristics in general. Previous literature has suggested that entrepreneurial training will improve attitudes toward entrepreneurship. More specifically. Only the involvement in an enterprise in a classroom setting stimulated innovation. and decrease their propensity to participate in socially undesirable behavior. academic performance. have long-term positive effects on economic development and global competitiveness by creating an entrepreneurial culture for our youth. therefore. as well as other pedagogies and program modalities. These factors are very important in the short-term behavior of students and the likelihood of avoiding destructive and criminal behavior. did not impact innovation. Subsequent research should address the effects of entrepreneurial training on a broader ethnic and age sample. Based on this study the educational system and the business community can be encouraged about investing in training to develop and nurture entrepreneurship at an early age. 16 .The results reveal that the students trained in entrepreneurship and who engaged in a classroombased enterprise also had a higher sense of personal control and self-esteem than a comparable cohort.

Gorman. (1989). Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 2(1). Risk-taking propensity of entrepreneurs. 13(4). T. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. IL: Rand-McNally. Public Education: Its effect on entrepreneurial characteristics. Hanlon. Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. 291-296. N. & Vozikis. 13(4). Ede. & Toulouse. B. Gibb. & Cohen. 23-30. Student attitudes toward entrepreneurship as affected by participation in an SBI program. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Validation of a didactic model for the analysis of training objectives in entrepreneurship. 25. Boyd. Journal of Education for Business. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. 509-520. P. L. 4(3). R. J. D. Cohen J. The influence of self-efficacy on the development of entrepreneurial intentions and actions. Hansemark. New Jersey: Erlbaum. & King. (1998). G. 15(3). Chamard. (1966).. African American students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship education. (1989). 23(3). Journal of Education for Business. Hillsdale. Hammer. enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year literature review. Begley. 17 . T. Psychological characteristics associated with performance in entrepreneurial smaller businesses. O. Consortium for Entrepreneurship Education (2002). Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research. (1987).. Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing.REFERENCES Bandura. International Small Business Journal. & Calcich.H. S.M.C. A. (1998). 538-554. W. Journal of Marketing Education 22(1). Panigrahi. Journal of Business Venturing. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Behaviour and Research. Brockhaus. A. Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship education. Developmental Psychology. J. J.A. The effects of an entrepreneurship programme on need for achievement and locus of control of reinforcement. Chen. Education for enterprise: Training for small business initiation—some contrasts.E. & Stanley. Academy of Management Journal. 317-332.G. 729-735.O. D.P. Campbell. 6(2). Hatten.. Bechard. & Boyd. 224-227. J. (1998). & Ruhland (1995). (1998). Greene. A. (1997). Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. 73(5). 7(4). (1993). 42-47. (1980). (1985). F. Journal of Business Venturing. Y.. 295-317. Chicago..G. & Crick. 4(1).. (1975). Gasse. 79-94. 25-34.S. A strategy for the promotion and identification of potential entrepreneurs at the secondary level. C. (1994). G. P. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneruship. (2000) The additive effects of semistructured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques. 28-50. D. 56-79.

(1966).B. 261-275. 13(1). McClelland. M. (1983). H. 1-8. (1969). 1. D. Carland. Kourilsky. W. & Harrison. D.L. Entrepreneurship education as a catalyst of development in the third world. Stewart. Robinson. Hunt. 14(3).. 389-392. 1-27..V. The educated entrepreneurs: A new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. and corporate managers. 80(1).B. H.Kourilsky. Academy of Management Proceedings. D. attitudes. 77-88. D. R. 175-199. Van Norstand.K. C. (1994). & Welsch.B.B.W. Littunen. 14(3). (1998). 5(3). & Graham. D. 2(3). W.L. & Winter. P. 12(2). gender differences. & Carlson. (1991). 13-31.R. (eds. An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship.A. Robinson. Huefner. B. (2000).. IL: Upstart. (1986).. R. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied. and educational practices. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice. small business owners. S. & Bowman. 6(6). R. (1961) The Achieving Society. W. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Predictors of entrepreneurship in a simulated economy. Montago. (1990). 13-31. C. 7(4). Krueger. D. Princeton. McMullan. 193-213. 295-309. (1999).H. C. Ronstadt. D. Emerging structures in entrepreneurship education: Curricular designs and strategies. & Walstad. 15(4). J. J. P. H. McClelland. Perception of entrepreneurial success characteristics. 91-104.. American Journal of Small Business. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research.C. 189-214 18 . A longitudinal study. & Scarella.C. H.): Entrepreneurship 2000. (1997).. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research. An attitude approach to the prediction of entrepreneurship.C.C.K. (1990). N.. & Carland. M. 19(2). J. Entrepreneurship education in the nineties. W.P. (1991). (1965) Need achievement and entrepreneurship. Motivating Economic Achievement. & Brazeal. Stimpson. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. McClelland. a comparison of entrepreneurs.. D. 15(4). Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship. & Smilor R. Watson. A proclivity for entrepreneurship. J. The Journal of Creative Behavior.L. Stimpson.G.. G.. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Education for youth: A curricular perspective in Sexton. 408-411. D. Plaschka. Huefner. Rotter. Sexton. Entrepreneurship and the characteristics of the entrepreneurial personality. Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge. D. J. W. Chicago. 11. Generalized expectations for internal versus external control reinforcement. A process model for entrepreneurship education and development. Kourilsky. Journal of Business Venturing.E. 83-109. 37-53. Leitch. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. & Hunt. N. J. 55-71.. Kuratko.E. 11(4).V. Singh. Determining entrepreneurial potential of students. (1980). 56-63. M. (1999). Journal of Business Venturing. Long. New York: the Free Press. Journal of Business Venturing. NY. (1986). (1987). J. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.. J. American Journal of Small Business.

L. 681-694. 19 . 23(2).S..P.. Entrepreneurship: Today courses.Stumpf. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice.H. (1991). and Mullen. Vesper. Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Oxymoron or untapped opportunity?. (1988).L. (1990) New Venture Strategies.H. tomorrow degrees?. Walstad. Vesper. Entrepreneurhsip Theory & Practice. W. Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research. Englewood Cliffs. T. K. N.E. M. Prentice-Hall. R. W. Dunbar. (1998). 7-13. K. 5-18.J. 13(1). & McMullan. S. Entrepreneurial Attitudes and knowledge of black youth. & Kourilsy.

20 .

.

68 .52 .41 .76 --.02 -.d.81 --.10 are significant at the p < .60 36. VENTURE Covariate 8.13 -.59 16.33 1. ATTITUDE Independent 6.11 . " 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 36.79 --.49 .79 --.42 --- 5.03. Reliability. CONTROL 3. INNOVATE 5.24 --- Correlation factors greater than .43 . and Pearson Bivariate Corelations VARIABLES Dependent 1.09 . .Table 1.09 .10 4.51 . 22 .78 .77 --- .09 .05 level.11 --.23 .42 .56 .54 . Descriptive Statistics. ESTEEM 4. ACHIEVE 2.11 .44 145.11 .12 .11 .69 . GRADE Mean s.08 .64 6.71 .52 .07 .05 -.59 5.99 37.05 .72 . EDUCATE 7.26 4.02 .36 35.

54 37.33 37.12 3.13 4.87 4.64 5.99 3.41 2.26 3.73 3.33 6. Mean Stan. Dev.53 3.05 23 . F 1.19 5.05 3. Mean Stan. Dev.01* 35.Table 2.28 4.37 4.84 6.03* 35.223 145.47 5.24 3.85 18.04 .77 13.07 36.01 146.86* 37.57 5.46 36.82* 35.10 149.07 Training H1b VENTURE No venture H2b H3b H4b H5b Mean Stan.61 4.68* 36.81* 35. Statistical Comparisons of Education and Venture Treatment Groups ATTITUDE H1a EDUCATE No training ACHIEVE H2a CONTROL H3a ESTEEM H4a INNOVATE H5a Mean Stan.395 143.25 . F 1.30 38.50 17. Dev. Dev.93 37.18 3.75 5.89 16.06 2.45* 36.37* Venture *P<.93 36.36 37.60 4.14 5.56 35.

. Rasheed is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of South Florida.Author’s Note Howard S. BSN3403. His research interests include strategic and entrepreneurial management. Rasheed. and electronic commerce. Tampa. Tel: (813) 974_1727. 33620. Ph. The University of South Florida College of Business.edu 24 . entrepreneurship education. Fax: (813) 974_1734. 4202 E. hrasheed@coba. College of Business Administration in Tampa Florida.usf.D. Fowler Ave. FL. Address all correspondance to: Howard S.