The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The International Journal of Management Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijme

The importance of HEI managerial practices in teachers’

competence in implementing entrepreneurship education:
Evidence from Finland
Sanna Joensuu-Salo a, K. Peltonen b, M. Hämäläinen c, *
a
Seinäjoki University of Applied Sciences, Seinäjoki, Finland
b
LAB University of Applied Sciences Lahti, Finland
c
LUT University, Lappeenranta, Finland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Higher education institutions (HEIs) are considered a source of educated, skilled and motivated
Entrepreneurship education entrepreneurs. Despite the growing literature on entrepreneurship education, there is an ongoing
Entrepreneurial competence debate on how entrepreneurship can be taught and the role of different policies in promoting
Managerial practices
entrepreneurship education. No consistent understanding of the role of HEIs or teachers’ own
Teaching methods
Higher education institution
entrepreneurial competence in entrepreneurship education has been formed. This study examines
the effect of perceived managerial practices of HEIs on teachers’ entrepreneurial competence and
practices in entrepreneurship education. These managerial practices include, for example, top
management support for promoting entrepreneurship. Data for this research was gathered from
871 higher education teachers in Finland. The results show that the managerial practices of HEIs
make a difference. They directly influence teachers’ affective and conative components of
entrepreneurial competence. When the strategy, curricula, quality management systems, incen­
tive pay systems, CRM systems and management of HEIs support and encourage the promotion of
entrepreneurship in teachers’ work, it positively affects teachers’ attitudes towards entrepre­
neurship education. This study verifies the importance of HEI management’s role in boosting
entrepreneurship education and supporting the competence of teachers.

1. Introduction

Promoting entrepreneurship is seen globally as an essential driver of societal prosperity and well-being (GEM, 2022; Meyer & de
Jongh, 2008; Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Enhanced university-business, university-industry, university-community collaboration
and increased interaction between HEI administration, teachers, students and entrepreneurs are especially considered to provide broad
educational, economic and social impacts on the region’s entrepreneurial activity (Dodd & Hynes, 2012; Lierse et al., 2022).
Furthermore, HEIs are considered a source of educated, skilled and motivated entrepreneurs (Gibb, 2011; Joensuu-Salo, Peltonen,
Hämäläinen, et al., 2020; Manimala, 2017; Matlay, 2010). Consequently, HEIs and their entrepreneurship education practices are
considered efficient ways to boost entrepreneurial capital and activity in the regions and contribute to regional development (Dodd &
Hynes, 2012; Gafar, 2020; Lahikainen et al., 2021; Laukkanen, 2000; Leitch et al., 2012).

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sanna.joensuu-salo@seamk.fi (M. Hämäläinen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100767
Received 20 October 2020; Received in revised form 15 December 2022; Accepted 18 January 2023
Available online 24 January 2023
1472-8117/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Entrepreneurship education made a breakthrough in HEIs during the 1990s, leading to changes in university curricula to equip
students with entrepreneurial competence (Chanphirun & Van der Sijde, 2014). Though the need for entrepreneurship education in
HEIs is widely acknowledged, the debate on how, where, and by whom entrepreneurship can be taught (Morris & Liguori, 2016; Walter
& Dohse, 2012), what does it mean in practice (Fejes et al., 2019), and what is the role of different policies in promoting entrepre­
neurship education (Lin & Xu, 2017) is still ongoing. HEIs can be actively involved with companies when developing research,
development and innovation (RDI) projects or curricula. Further, Aamir et al. (2019) showed in their review that most studies
examined the concepts of entrepreneurial orientation, entrepreneurial intention, entrepreneurial motivation, entrepreneurial char­
acteristics, entrepreneurial skills, entrepreneurial knowledge, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, entrepreneurial capabilities, and entre­
preneurial alertness and mindset. Hence, the focus in previous research has been mainly on the outcomes and contents of
entrepreneurship education. Yet, surprisingly little attention has been given to the critical role of entrepreneurship educators (Hannon,
2018; Neck & Corbett, 2018).
Previous research suggests that in order to be effective, entrepreneurship education should be implemented with various teaching
methods (Varamäki et al., 2015). Zamani and Mohammadi (2017) showed that entrepreneurial learning is best supported by expe­
riential learning and learning by doing. The teacher is the one who mainly decides which methods to use in entrepreneurship edu­
cation. However, as prior research (e.g. Kurczewska et al., 2018; Peltonen, 2015; Neck & Greene, 2011) suggests, the perceived
entrepreneurial competence of the teacher influences the teaching practices they use in entrepreneurship education. Peltonen (2015)
defines teachers’ entrepreneurial competence holistically as encompassing three main components: cognitive, affective and conative.
The cognitive component refers to knowledge, skills and beliefs; the affective component to feelings, emotions and attitudes; and the
conative to motivational and volitional steering of actions. For a long time, the research focused on developing teachers’ cognitive
competencies (Neck & Greene, 2011). However, the role of the affective and conative components has also gradually gained more
interest (see, e.g. Ruohotie & Koiranen, 2001; Kovač et al., 2010; Kurczewska et al., 2018). However, further empirical research is
needed to fully understand the significance of how the teacher’s own entrepreneurial competence in implementing entrepreneurship
education has been formed.
In addition, it could be argued that HEIs can influence teachers’ entrepreneurial competencies (especially affective and conative
components of competence) with managerial practices by promoting entrepreneurship education in various ways. As prior research
indicates (e.g. Rooney et al., 2009), managerial support positively impacts employees’ work-related attitudes and behaviours. Man­
agement plays a pivotal role in building a vision, strategies and guidelines and in ensuring that the strategies and support mechanisms
are aligned (Lahikainen, Kolhinen, Ruskovaara, & Pihkala, 2019). Management also influences the development of the entrepreneurial
climate within an organisation. It, in turn, positively impacts teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviour. For instance, the Van Dam et al.
(2010) study focused on vocational schools in the Netherlands and showed a positive relationship between a perceived strong
entrepreneurial climate and teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviour and networking skills.
However, though teachers’ possibilities to implement entrepreneurship education are closely related to entrepreneurship educa­
tion management (Bikse, Riemere, & Rivza, 2014), more research is needed to understand the effects of managerial practices of HEIs
on entrepreneurship education and the role of teachers’ entrepreneurial competence. To narrow this research gap, in this study, we
focus on exploring how teachers perceive and recognise managerial practices of HEIs and how these affect teachers’ entrepreneurial
competence and practices in entrepreneurship education. The objective of this study is threefold: 1) to examine the effect of perceived
managerial practices of HEIs on teachers’ entrepreneurial competence, 2) to examine the effect of HEIs’ managerial practices on
teaching practice in entrepreneurship education, and 3) to examine the effect of teachers’ entrepreneurial competence (affective and
conative components) on teaching practice in entrepreneurship education.
This paper examines this phenomenon in the context of HEIs in Finland. These HEIs constitute an interesting context because
Finland is the first country in the European Union that, following the recommendations of the European Commission (2012; 2018), has
included entrepreneurship education in curricula at all school levels. Entrepreneurship education has been included in Finnish basic
education curricula since 1994. Furthermore, along with education and research, development and innovation activity, the promotion
of entrepreneurship and regional development are statutory tasks (the third mission) of the Finnish HEIs. Consequently, following the
national guidelines (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017), the promotion of entrepreneurship has been emphasised in the visions
and strategic management of the HEIs. In addition, entrepreneurship education is represented in various ways, including the entre­
preneurial skills embedded in many school subjects, the entrepreneurial approach as a teaching method, entrepreneurship as course
content and finally, entrepreneurship as an academic discipline (Hytti & Heinonen, 2008; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2013, 2014). In
Finland, teachers in universities of applied sciences are regulated and hold a formal diploma of pedagogical competence.
Additionally, the National Guidelines for Entrepreneurship Education (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017) stress that all
teachers at all educational levels are to promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial competence in their teaching. That is, entre­
preneurship promotion is not limited to those teachers who teach entrepreneurship, but it is for teachers of all subjects. According to
these guidelines, entrepreneurship education in the educational context is seen as a broad approach that aims at 1) inspiring and
shaping a positive mindset and attitudes towards entrepreneurship among students and staff members, 2) increasing students’
knowledge, developing their skills and entrepreneurial behaviour, and 3) developing entrepreneurial learning environments and
culture in educational settings. Corporate and working life collaboration is strongly intertwined with these aims (Ministry of Education
and Culture, 2017).

2
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

2. Theoretical framework

2.1. Managerial practices of HEIs in supporting entrepreneurship education

Entrepreneurship has been identified as a major driver for regional economic growth and employment (Shane & Venkataraman,
2000). Nowadays, HEIs can be seen as driving forces for entrepreneurship, innovation, technological progress and economic growth
(Carvalho et al., 2010; Dodd & Hynes, 2012; Hannon, 2013; Lahikainen et al., 2018). As a result, HEIs are seeking ways to become
more entrepreneurial by redesigning and aligning their governance structures, mission statements and strategies, and pedagogical
practices and creating public and private partnerships with regional, national and global stakeholders (Gibb et al., 2013).
The organisation’s actions reflect top management’s thinking (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Entrepreneurial thinking manifests itself
in many ways in HEIs. Many HEIs have emphasised entrepreneurship in their strategies and set internal guidelines on integrating
entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education more rigorously into educational practices (Lahikainen et al., 2018). Prior entre­
preneurship education research has shown that school management, for example, the school principal, is an active operator in
developing entrepreneurship education (Birdthistle et al., 2007; Eyal & Inbar, 2003; Hämäläinen et al., ml 2018a, 2018b, Ruskovaara
et al., 2016). Earlier studies have indicated that school management development activities affect the level of entrepreneurship ed­
ucation practices in schools directly and positively (Hämäläinen et al., 2018a) even though teachers make individual choices about
pedagogy and methods used in their teaching. Top management plays an essential role in advancing entrepreneurship in HEIs since
there are certain strategic decisions whose use is at the discretion of school management.
Entrepreneurship education is promoted in the European Union, OECD policy documents and several European countries have
included it in their national curriculum (Eurydice, 2016; OECD, i.a.). The EUCommission has also established a European entrepre­
neurship competence framework, EntreComp, which intends to support and inspire actions to improve the entrepreneurial capacity of
European citizens and organisations. The educational system, ranging from preschool to university, is expected to equip citizens with
entrepreneurial competencies. In addition to European and national entrepreneurship education policies and recommendations, many
countries have regional and local strategies for entrepreneurship in education. Their guiding role is not official; rather, it provides
concrete guidance for implementing entrepreneurship education practices.
Though international and national entrepreneurship guiding documents suggest promoting entrepreneurship in education, they
only have a supportive role since all educational institutions are responsible for embedding entrepreneurship education in their
curricula and strategy. That gives the HEI management a vital role in ensuring that the guiding documents have been considered in the
HEI’s strategy and curricula. Formulating curricula is a process where teachers, management and students may all be involved. Higher
education curricula may be summarised as indicating the objectives for knowledge and skills. They are based on external and internal
factors. External factors include the educational structure, reflecting the objectives for knowledge, the production of professional
competence and reflecting skills objectives. As an embodiment of the discipline’s core, the curriculum relates to internal objectives and
the knowledge perspective. In contrast, the curriculum as the framework for the growth of expertise relates to internal objectives but
emphasises the function of competence (Annala & Mäkinen, 2011).
Furthermore, many practical entrepreneurship education activities largely depend on the management’s approval, contribution, or
encouragement. As the implementation of entrepreneurship education is very much affected by how it is supported through resources,
time, expert assistance, and connections to the world outside (Hämäläinen et al., 2018a, 2018b, 2022; Ruskovaara et al., 2016) the
involvement of school management in the implementation of entrepreneurship education in HEIs is significant. In practice, managerial
support may take different forms and occur through several kinds of incentives, which may be monetary or non-monetary in nature,
such as managing operations, guiding people, providing resources and representing an example of expected behaviour; support
through allocation of resources and time, providing expert assistance and support for building connections to the outside world
(Hämäläinen et al., 2022; Montecinos, Walker, & Maldonado, 2015; Ruskovaara et al., 2016; Peltonen, 2015). Furthermore, HEIs can
support the implementation of entrepreneurship education by providing quality management systems, incentive payroll systems,
rewards, and CRM systems that encourage the promotion of entrepreneurship.
As entrepreneurship education is becoming increasingly important (Kuratko, 2005), higher education institutions have applied a
variety of mechanisms to advance entrepreneurship education. In addition to traditional study programs, other mechanisms to
advance entrepreneurship education within HEIs have gained a foothold. Structures enhancing entrepreneurship education are
essential as they transform strategic thinking into operational activities. University incubators, accelerators and entrepreneurship
centres are examples of these kinds of structures. Other structures, such as incentives and reward systems to boost entrepreneurial
action, effectively communicate HEIs’ desired future direction (Lahikainen et al., 2018). Systems enabling performance compared to
systems focusing on measures and targets have been found to be particularly beneficial (Franco-Santos & Doherty, 2017). It is the
choice of the management of an individual HEI if their quality management system supports personnel’s promotional activities related
to entrepreneurship or if the pay system encourages the promotion of entrepreneurship.
HEIs are part of the broader local ecosystem. Collaboration with external partners ensures knowledge sharing between partners and
further economic development and regional growth (Guerrero et al., 2015; Mueller, 2006). Therefore, it is essential to emphasise
collaborative actions and foster university-industry partnerships to facilitate entrepreneurial growth. For example, the HEI’s CRM
system can help establish such partnerships.
Therefore, top management decisions, structures enhancing entrepreneurship and internal processes shape entrepreneurial culture
(Deakins et al., 2005). Further, the decisions are important indicators of entrepreneurship in HEIs. In addition, top management plays a
symbolic role—support shown towards the entrepreneurial behaviour of personnel shapes employees’ mindsets and guides their
decision-making (Hämäläinen et al., 2022; Simon, 1997).

3
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

2.2. Teachers’ entrepreneurial competence

An entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurship skills and awareness of career opportunities are essential parts of the European
Union’s strategy to foster an entrepreneurial culture (European Commission, 2018). Teachers and educators have a substantial role in
promoting and implementing entrepreneurship education at all educational levels (Fayolle, 2013; Gibb, 2011; Peltonen, 2015; Pihie &
Bagheri, 2011; Ruskovaara & Pihkala, 2013; Seikkula-Leino et al., 2015). From that point of view, it is imperative that teachers have a
positive mindset and attitude towards entrepreneurship and that they have the necessary competencies to meet and fulfil these ex­
pectations and to act as entrepreneurial role models to stimulate students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviour (Huang et al., 2020;
Lahikainen et al., 2021; Neck & Corbett, 2018; Peltonen, 2015). In light of earlier studies (e.g. Korhonen et al., 2012; Seikkula-Leino
et al., 2015), it seems that teachers’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship education, in general, are pretty positive. However, the results
also show that teachers find promoting and implementing entrepreneurship education in practice somewhat difficult owing to the
multifaceted interpretations and connotations attached to the concept of entrepreneurship (Korhonen et al., 2012). These results imply
that on the cognitive level, teachers are aware of the significance of entrepreneurship education and their role in it. Still, they might be
more hesitant on the motivational and behavioural level.
Drawing on the personality and intelligence typology of Snow et al. (1996), the research literature on entrepreneurial competencies
(e.g. Hoskins & Deakin Crick, 2010; Kovač et al., 2010; Kyrö et al., 2011; Ruohotie & Koiranen, 2001) suggests that entrepreneurial
competencies consist of three, partly overlapping components, such as cognitive, conative and affective components. Baron (2008) and
Ruohotie and Koiranen (2001) highlight the role of affect in the entrepreneurial processes. Drawing from psychology and neurosci­
ence, they propose that affective constructs, such as underlying assumptions and feelings, shape thoughts and thus influence organ­
isational behaviour (e.g. willingness to engage and cooperate) and decision-making. Furthermore, affective constructs (positive affect)
also seem to have an effect on opportunity recognition and creativity and in generating new ideas. Baron (2008, pp. 333–334) further
suggests that a positive affect ‘may also contribute to the breadth and quality of the social networks and the range and nature of the
relationship with other persons’ and individuals’ tendency to seek social contacts.
Without overlooking the significance of cognitive competencies, referring to knowledge, skills and beliefs on entrepreneurship,
recent studies on teachers’ entrepreneurial competencies (e.g. Huang et al., 2020; Joensuu-Salo, Peltonen, Hämäläinen, et al., 2020;
Peltonen, 2015) indicate that conative components of competence (motivation and volition) and affective components of competence,
such as feelings and emotions are especially crucial in developing teachers’ abilities to implement entrepreneurship education in
practice successfully. As prior studies indicate (e.g. Huang et al., 2020; Joensuu-Salo, Peltonen, Hämäläinen, et al., 2020; Peltonen,
2015), teachers’ underlying perceptions of entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship education and their competence as entrepreneurship
educators are manifested in the ways they implement entrepreneurship education as a subject theme and through pedagogical
practices. Thus, more emphasis needs to be put on exploring the relationship between teachers’ affective and conative predispositions,
such as attitudes towards entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship education and their volitional steering of action, which in this case
refers to a willingness to take purposive actions as entrepreneurial role models, and the teaching practices they tend to apply in
practice. Being an entrepreneurial role model means that a teacher can apply such teaching methods and create learning environments
that enable the development of students’ entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviour. Hence, having a background as a business owner is
not a requirement for acting as an entrepreneurial role model for students, but naturally, having prior personal experience of what it
feels like to be an entrepreneur might help teachers adopt reasonable pedagogical practices.
As discussed earlier, managerial practices of HEIs may or may not support teachers’ entrepreneurial competence. Thus, it is
important to explore the linkage between conative and affective components and managerial practices of HEIs as well. In this study, we
show how conative and affective functions are an important part of entrepreneurship education and what role managerial practices of
HEIs can have in these functions. According to Ruohotie (2000), the key processes of entrepreneurship education attach to the conative
construction, the process of motivation and willingness, whether the learning is formal or based on daily life. In addition, Gibb (2002)
highlights the affective perspective on learning.
Hence, based on prior research on managerial practices and teachers’ entrepreneurial competence, we propose the following
hypotheses.
H1. HEIs’ managerial practices in promoting entrepreneurship education have a positive effect on teachers’ entrepreneurial
competence (both affective and conative components).
H2. Teachers’ affective and conative components of entrepreneurial competence are positively linked. The affective component has a
positive effect on the conative component.

2.3. Teaching practices in entrepreneurship education

The teaching methods and practices used in entrepreneurship education both require and develop, above all, innovativeness and
the ability to perceive and exploit the opportunities offered by society and the operating environment. From the point of view of
learning, it is essential to ensure that students reflect on their learning experiences. It is a prerequisite for qualitatively high learning
(Gibb, 2002; Ruohotie, 1999). On the other hand, entrepreneurship education focuses on developing an entrepreneurial mindset and
psychological competencies (Kuratko, 2005).
In general, the teacher’s role is essential, as they have a key position in promoting entrepreneurship and an entrepreneurial mindset
among students (Huang et al., 2020; Lahikainen et al., 2018; Nabi et al., 2017; Peltonen, 2015). Teachers’ attitudes can be seen in their
methods or practices (Bennett, 2006; Birdthistle et al., 2007; Huang et al., 2020; Joensuu-Salo, Peltonen, Hämäläinen, et al., 2020). In

4
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

entrepreneurship education, the role of teachers has been changing from delivering knowledge to acting as a facilitator encouraging
learners to implement their dreams. Learner activeness, student interaction, joint projects and collaboration are the main elements of
teaching practices and pedagogical choices (Jones & Matlay, 2011). On the other hand, managerial support from HEIs can be essential
in supporting the use of versatile teaching methods in entrepreneurship education. Hämäläinen et al. (2022) showed that HEIs’
managerial practices have a significant and direct effect on teachers’ perceptions of the importance of entrepreneurship education—i.
e. how important and interesting teachers consider implementing entrepreneurship education in their own work.
Some researchers have argued that current entrepreneurship teaching methods fail to cultivate specific entrepreneurial compe­
tencies in students (Gibb, 2002; Heinonen & Poikkijoki, 2006; Henry et al., 2005). These critical questions face entrepreneurship
teachers with serious challenges, such as the selection of effective instruction and assessment methods and engaging students in the
process of learning that may reduce their sense of ability to successfully teach entrepreneurship (Gibb, 2002; Heinonen, 2007; Smith
et al., 2006).
A teacher must master the theory of learning and teaching as well as the practice. A teacher influences learning through various
support methods. In this context, learning support includes learning environments and materials, teaching and guidance methods and
assessment and feedback (Nunan & Lamb, 2000, pp. 155–158). A teacher organises the whole and directs the learning processes to
facilitate the learner’s learning process in gaining the desired competencies (Eraut, 1994, p. 166). They can make choices either by
relying on random choices or research-based knowledge and arguments.
Entrepreneurship education can take advantage of, for example, different competitions related to business creation and business
ideas. Students can also set up fictional or real businesses. They can play business games designed to help them learn entrepreneurship
and run practice companies. Students can explore entrepreneurial stories by reading, listening, watching video recordings or shad­
owing entrepreneurs (Carrier, 2005, p. 151). According to Mwasalwiba (2010), lectures, case studies, discussions, group work and
business simulations are the teaching methods most often used in entrepreneurship. In contrast, study visits, role play, presentations,
workshops, games and competitions and setting up real ventures are less frequently used. Lectures still dominate teaching methods
(Cheng et al., 2009).
The context of teaching methods is typically either in everyday teaching in the classroom or practices that require networking with
actors outside the school (Pittaway & Cope, 2007). According to several studies, teachers prefer to choose methods that are easy to
implement in traditional classroom settings, and real-life experiences are still quite seldom used (e.g. Cheng et al., 2009; Ruskovaara &
Pihkala, 2014). Modern features of teaching are well suited to entrepreneurship education. In meaningful, authentic learning envi­
ronments, knowledge is linked to the context in which it is used (Barab et al., 2000; Herrington et al., 2003; Herrington & Oliver,
2000). The subject of learning is the real world and the problems that arise from it. This can be implemented in cooperation with
companies (Lindh & Thorgren, 2016).
Based on prior research, we argue that both a teacher’s entrepreneurial competence and an HEI’s managerial support can affect the
teaching practices in entrepreneurship education. However, as Hämäläinen et al. (2022) showed, an HEI’s managerial practices
directly affect a teacher’s mindset. Thus, we argue that the teacher’s entrepreneurial competence indirectly mediates the effect on
teaching practices. We propose the following hypotheses.
H3. Teachers’ affective and conative components of entrepreneurial competence have a positive effect on teaching practice in
entrepreneurship education.
H4. HEIs’ managerial practice in promoting entrepreneurship education indirectly positively affects teaching practice in entrepre­
neurship education via teachers’ entrepreneurial competence.

2.4. Conceptual model

This study examines the effect of the HEIs’ managerial practices on teachers’ entrepreneurial competence and, via this competence,
its effect on teaching practices used in entrepreneurship education. The focus is on teachers’ views, especially how they perceive their
HEI’s managerial practices in the context of entrepreneurship education.
Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model of the study and the hypotheses. We suggest that an HEI’s managerial practices in promoting
entrepreneurship education indirectly and positively affect teaching practices used in entrepreneurship education. Thus, a teacher’s
entrepreneurial competence mediates the effect of managerial practices. We also propose that a teacher’s entrepreneurial competence

Fig. 1. The conceptual model of the study.

5
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

has a positive and direct effect on the teaching practices in entrepreneurship education and that the affective component of a teacher’s
entrepreneurial competence positively influences the conative component.

3. Data and methods

3.1. Data collection

The data for this study comes from Finland; it was collected during the years 2014–2019 via an Internet survey titled (freely
translated from Finnish) the Measurement tool for teachers’ entrepreneurship, which is a self-evaluation tool for teachers, principals
and research and development staff working at Universities of Applied Sciences. The tool’s construction is based on numerous studies,
and it is designed to measure the respondents’ entrepreneurship promotion operations in HEIs. The survey asks the respondents what
they do when they are teaching or promoting entrepreneurship. Our data shows 871 responses from higher education teachers from 21
Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS), representing nearly 20% of Finnish UAS teachers (Vipunen, 2022).
The respondents represent various fields of study. Table 1 presents the background of the respondents. In Finland, the policy
documents (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2017) recommend that all teachers promote entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial
competence in their teaching, regardless of their subject and education level.

3.2. Survey instrument and items

The Measurement tool for teachers’ entrepreneurship is a research-based self-evaluation tool for teachers, principals and research
and development staff working at UAS. The tool is designed to measure respondents’ entrepreneurship education. The survey asks the
respondents what they do when they are teaching and promoting entrepreneurship. Respondents answer anonymously and volun­
tarily, and the tool is publicly available (in Finnish, www.lut.fi/yrittajyysmittaristo).
The Measurement Tool’s items were inspired by the earlier literature and were modified together with representatives of UAS
teachers to capture their points of view. The questionnaire comprises 72 questions, but in this study, we focus on 21, concentrating on
managerial practices, teaching practices and entrepreneurial competence. The scale for each item was a five-scale Likert scale, where 1
= ‘I totally disagree’ and 5 = ‘I totally agree’.
There are several aspects in examining the reliability and validity of the scales. These include, e.g. internal consistency, content
validity and construct validity (Bannigan & Watson, 2009). Internal consistency is applied to groups of items that are thought to
measure different aspects of the same concept (Litwin, 1995). For testing internal consistency for reliability, we used Cronbach’s alpha.
Our sample size (871) was large enough to use coefficient alpha in reliability analysis, as Kline (1986) suggests. Reliabilities of 0.70 or
better were considered acceptable based on Nunnally’s (1978) recommendation. All the scales had acceptable reliability ratios. Table 2
presents the scale items and Cronbach’s alphas.
Content validity refers to the extent a scale includes all the relevant issues in terms of its content (Bannigan & Watson, 2009). It is
closely related to construct validity and is difficult to evaluate. There is no list of ‘correct content’; therefore, total content validity is
impossible to ensure (Sim & Arnell, 1993). However, it can be assessed on a critical review by an expert panel for clarity and
completeness or comparing it with the literature or both (Bannigan & Watson, 2009). Here, a participatory development approach was
used to involve entrepreneurial education experts, teachers and researchers in the Measurement Tool’s development project (Cohen
et al., 2007; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988). Approximately 15 experts participated in the development process. After the expert panel,
the results were compared with literature to achieve authenticity and ensure all the construct’s relevant concepts were included in the
scale (Messick, 1994). In addition, face validity was assessed by the expert panel. Face validity is closely related to content validity. It

Table 1
Background of the respondents.
Respondents (n = 871) n %

Gender
Female 514 59.0
Male 357 41.0

Fields of study
Business and administration 250 28.7
Technology and transportation 212 24.3
Social sciences, health and sports 188 21.6
Natural resources and environmental sciences 66 7.6
Humanities and education 60 6.9
Arts and culture 43 4.9
Tourism and catering 32 3.7
Natural sciences 19 2.2
Military 1 0.1

Has the respondent worked as an entrepreneur before their teaching career?

No 560 64.3
Yes 311 35.7

6
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Table 2
Scale items and Cronbach’s alphas.
Scale Scale items Cronbach’s
alpha

Managerial practices of HEI
Teaching practices in
entrepreneurship
Teacher’s conative component of
competence
Teacher’s affective component of
competence
• Companies are actively involved in developing RDI projects in our HEI. .89
• We consider the needs of companies in our area when developing our RDI projects.
• We consider the competence needs of companies in our area when developing
curricula.
• Our HEI’s strategy supports promoting entrepreneurship in my work.
• Our HEI’s curricula supports promoting entrepreneurship in my work.
• Our quality management system supports my promotion activities related to
entrepreneurship.
• Our payroll system encourages the promotion of entrepreneurship.
• Our CRM system encourages the promotion of entrepreneurship.
• Our top management supports the promotion of entrepreneurship with concrete
activities.
• My supervisor supports the promotion of entrepreneurship in my work.
• I utilise competitions promoting entrepreneurship in my teaching. .75
• I utilise companies, entrepreneurs and their stories in my teaching.
• I guide my students to learn entrepreneurship during internships.
• I use methods that simulate business activities in my teaching.
• I evaluate the success of our HEI’s working community from the point of view of .85
promoting entrepreneurship.
• I strengthen the promotion activities of entrepreneurship in my working community.
• I develop entrepreneurship education in my working community.
• I think that entrepreneurship should be integrated as part of my subject. .88
• I think that teaching entrepreneurship is interesting.
• I think that entrepreneurship is hard to integrate as part of my teaching. (reversed)
• I don’t consider teaching entrepreneurship as being important in my subject. (reversed)

can be defined as the subject’s acceptance of the text (Payton, 1988). The Measurement Tool must be understandable and perceived as
relevant by the subjects. The relevance of the scales was assessed and tested with a group of respondents.
Construct validity can be assessed through factorial validity (Bannigan & Watson, 2009). We used explorative factor analysis to test
the factorial validity of the scales. All of the communalities of the items were high enough (>0.3) to be included in the analysis. As
expected, four factors with eigenvalues higher than one emerged in the factor analysis. We were especially interested in teachers’
entrepreneurial competence and the assumption of two independent components: affective and conative. The results verified the factor
loadings on expected scales. For the affective component, the factor loadings of the items varied between 0.78 and 0.84; and for the
conative component, between 0.82 and 0.85. Hence, the factorial validity of the scales was good.

3.3. Analysis methods

The normality of scales was tested using both the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests. These tests showed that all the
variables in our model were normally distributed. In addition, all requirements for using path analysis (an extension of regression
analysis) were examined. These included normal response and error terms distribution, no autocorrelation, homoscedasticity or
multicollinearity (Hilbe, 2009; Menard, 2010). Variance inflation factor values were examined to check for a possible multicollinearity
problem. All the VIF values were at an acceptable level (VIF <3).
Podsakoff et al. (2003) point out that common method variance (CMV) can bias the findings of empirical analyses when data for
both the predictor and criterion variable are obtained from the same person in the same measurement context using the same item
context and similar characteristics. The possible common method bias was tested using Harman’s single factor test following Kaiser’s
criterion for retention of factors and examining the unrotated factor solution as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). Factor
solution resulted in several factors (four), where the first factor counted for 37% of the variance. Since several factors were identified
and the first factor did not account for the majority of the variance, common method variance does not appear to be present in the
study.
We used path analysis to test the conceptual model. Path analysis is an extension of multiple regression analysis. It allows the
magnitude and significance of hypothesised causal relations between a set of variables to be tested (Steiner, 2005). Path analysis is
especially appropriate when ‘theoretical, empirical and commonsense knowledge of a problem’ is identified (Cook & Campbell, 1979,
p. 307). Path analysis is sensible to use when hypothesised relationships have strong theoretical and empirical support. We tested the
following paths: Managerial practices of HEIs were hypothesised to influence teachers’ entrepreneurial competence (both affective and
conative components). Teachers’ competence would mediate the influence of managerial practices of HEIs and influence the
remaining variables; teachers’ conative component of competence would mediate the influence of managerial practices and partially
mediate the influence of teachers’ affective component of competence on teaching practices in entrepreneurship education; teachers’
entrepreneurial competence (both affective and conative components) was hypothesised to influence teaching practices in

7
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

entrepreneurship education directly.

3.4. Descriptive values of the scales and correlations

Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables. The mean value of managerial practices of HEIs
was 3.2, ranging from 1 to 5. Some respondents feel that their HEI strongly supports entrepreneurship education, while others feel the
opposite. The mean value of teaching practices in entrepreneurship was 3.1. The minimum score was one, and the maximum score was
five. Teachers’ conative component of entrepreneurial competence had a lower mean value (3.1) than teachers’ affective components
of entrepreneurial competence (3.8). Both scores ranged from 1 to 5. This means that, on average, teachers have a positive attitude
towards entrepreneurship education (affective component). However, fewer see themselves as active promoters of entrepreneurship
(conative component). Correlations between all variables were significant. Correlations did not exceed 0.7; hence there was no
problem with multicollinearity in the path analysis.

4. Results

Table 4 provides estimates from the path analysis with standardised regression weights. All the path coefficients were significant in
the model. The strongest positive effect was from teachers’ affective component of competence on the conative component of
competence (.553, p < .001), followed by teachers’ conative component of competence to teaching practices in entrepreneurship
(0.417, p < .001). In addition, the affective component of competence has a positive and direct effect on teaching practices (0.368, p
< .001). Thus, hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported. Results also show that managerial practices of HEIs have a positive and direct effect
on both the affective and conative components of competence supporting hypothesis 1. To confirm the mediation effect (hypothesis 4),
we also tested a direct path from the perceived managerial practice of HEIs to teaching practice in entrepreneurship. The path proved
insignificant as the model hypothesised; hence, teachers’ entrepreneurial competence statistically fully mediates the effect of the
managerial practices of HEIs on teaching practice in entrepreneurship.
Table 5 provides an overview of the direct, indirect and total effects on teaching practice in entrepreneurship. All the indirect
effects of the path model are statistically significant. The strongest total effect is the path from teachers’ affective component of
competence to teaching practice in entrepreneurship. Hence, we could argue that the individual’s attitude is the most critical factor
when implementing teaching practices in entrepreneurship. However, there is a significant and positive indirect effect of HEIs’
managerial practices on teaching practices in entrepreneurship, which is mediated through teachers’ entrepreneurial competence
(both affective and conative components) supporting hypothesis 4. It is essential to notice that perceived managerial practices of HEIs
have a significant positive effect on teachers’ entrepreneurial competence (both affective and conative components). The results verify
the importance of both managerial level input and teachers’ input in developing versatile teaching methods in entrepreneurship
education and support our conceptual model.
The whole model explains 55% of the variance in teaching practice in entrepreneurship, 48% of the variance in teachers’ conative
component of entrepreneurial competence and 8% of the variance in teachers’ affective component of entrepreneurial competence.
Byrne (2010) suggests different fit indices to evaluate path model fit. For path model fit, the acceptable model was operationalised as
X2/degrees of freedom (df) ratios (CMIN/DF) less than 3.0, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values greater than 0.90, Normal Fit Index
(NFI) values greater than 0.95 (above 0.90 is accepted) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values of less than
0.08. The model fit is very good: CMIN/DF = 0.99, p = .319; CFI = 1.00; NFI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.000. Fig. 2 presents the standardised
estimates and the whole path model.
The results give strong support for our hypotheses. The managerial practices of HEIs in promoting entrepreneurship education have
a positive effect on teachers’ entrepreneurial competence. The effect on the conative component is a bit stronger than on the affective
component. Thus, hypothesis 1 is supported. Also, hypothesis 2 is supported by the results. Teachers’ affective and conative com­
ponents are positively linked. The affective component has a significant positive effect on the conative component. In addition, both
components (affective and conative) have a significant positive effect on teaching practice in entrepreneurship education, supporting
hypothesis 3. The effect of the conative component is a bit stronger than that of the affective component. The results also show that the
managerial practices of HEIs in promoting entrepreneurship education have an indirect and positive effect on teaching practices in
entrepreneurship education. This effect is mediated through teachers’ entrepreneurial competence. Thus, hypothesis 4 is supported.
We performed some additional analysis. First, the model was tested separately for female and male teachers. All the hypothesised

Table 3
Means, standard deviations and correlations of the variables in the path analysis.
Mean SD MP TPE CC

MP 3.2 .66 – – –
TPE 3.1 .86 .33*** – –
CC 3.1 .92 .48*** .67*** –
AC 3.8 .88 .28*** .65*** .62***

Note. MP = Managerial practices of HEIs; TPE = Teaching practices in entrepreneurship; CC = Teachers’ conative component of competence AC =
Teachers’ affective component of competence.
***p < .001.

8
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Table 4
Estimates of the path analysis.
Estimate SE. CR. Standardised regression weight p

MP → AC .390 .046 8.517 .288 ***

AC → CC .553 .028 20.081 .529 ***
MP → CC .459 .037 12.465 .324 ***
CC → TPE .417 .029 14.447 .445 ***
AC → TPE .368 .030 12.109 .376 ***

Note. MP = Managerial practices of HEIs; TPE = Teaching practices in entrepreneurship; CC = Teachers’ conative component of competence; AC =
Teachers’ affective component of competence.
***p < .001.

Table 5
Direct, indirect and total effects.
Direct Standardised direct Indirect Standardised indirect Total Standardised total

On TPE of MP .000 .000 .424** .321** .424** .321**

On TPE of CC .417*** .445*** .000 .000 .417*** .445***
On TPE of AC .368*** .376*** .230** .236** .598*** .612***
On CC of MP .459*** .324*** .216** .153** .674*** .477***
On CC of AC .553*** .529*** .000 .000 .553*** .529***
On AC of MP .390*** .288*** .000 .000 .390*** .288***

Note. MP = Managerial practices of HEIs; TPE = Teaching practices in entrepreneurship; CC = Teachers’ conative component of competence; AC =
Teachers’ affective component of competence.
**p < .01 ***p < .001.

Fig. 2. Empirical model with standardised estimates.

relationships are significant for both genders. Thus, the model holds for both male and female teachers. However, it is interesting that
the effect of managerial practices of HEIs has an even more substantial effect on male teachers’ conative component of competence
(0.39, p < .001) compared to their female counterparts (0.28, p < .001). Second, we tested the model separately for teachers who had
entrepreneurial experience (they had worked as entrepreneurs before their teaching career) and teachers with no entrepreneurial
experience. For both of these groups, all the hypothesised relationships are significant. Thus, the models also hold both for teachers
with entrepreneurial experience and teachers without such experience. Interestingly, the positive effect of managerial practices of HEIs
on the affective component of competence is a bit stronger for teachers with entrepreneurial experience (0.38, p < .001) than for
teachers without entrepreneurial experience (0.23, p < .001). The additional analysis verifies our model for different kinds of groups
and also indicates some differences in the strength of the relationships.

5. Discussion

The objective of this study was to examine the effect of perceived managerial practices of HEIs on teachers’ entrepreneurial
competence and practices in entrepreneurship education. The results show that the managerial practices of HEIs make a difference.
They directly and positively affect teachers’ affective and conative components of entrepreneurial competence. If the strategies,
curricula, quality management systems, incentive pay systems, CRM systems and management of HEIs support and encourage the
promotion of entrepreneurship in teachers’ work, it positively affects teachers’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship education. In
addition, it affects how actively teachers promote and develop entrepreneurship education in their HEI (conative component).
Therefore, our first hypothesis gets strong support. The effect of managerial practices has been studied in prior management research
(e.g. Franco-Santos & Doherty, 2017; Slåtten, 2009). However, this aspect has gained little attention in entrepreneurship education
research. Thus, one of our study’s contributions is combining the perspectives of management and entrepreneurship education
research from a new perspective. We showed that managerial practices of HEIs have a significant positive effect also on the field of
entrepreneurship education. Our findings support the arguments of Hämäläinen et al. (2022)—the managerial practices of HEIs are
important in shaping the entrepreneurial mindset of teachers and building entrepreneurial universities.
Teachers’ entrepreneurial competence, in turn, has a direct positive effect on teaching practice used in entrepreneurship education,

9
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

supporting hypothesis 3. This is in line with prior research, which has shown a positive relationship between the perceived entre­
preneurial competence of the teacher and the teaching practices used in entrepreneurship education (Kurczewska et al., 2018; Pel­
tonen, 2015; Neck & Greene, 2011). Higher competence leads to more versatile methods. This is important because prior research
shows that the versatility of teaching methods in entrepreneurship education is more effective than, i.e. using only lectures (Varamäki
et al., 2015). Our research also shows that the affective component directly and positively influences the conative component of
competence supporting hypothesis 2. Thus, as our conceptual model presumed, the affective side of competence (the attitude) has a
double role—it affects both the conative component of competence and the teaching practices in entrepreneurship education. The
effect of teachers’ entrepreneurial competence on teaching practice in entrepreneurship education has not been studied in prior
entrepreneurship research from this point of view. Our study contributes to increasing the understanding of the roles of affective and
conative components of entrepreneurial competence in teaching practice in entrepreneurship education. It also supports the findings of
Joensuu-Salo, Peltonen, Hämäläinen, et al. (2020), who showed that a teacher’s ability to implement entrepreneurial teaching is
related to using versatile teaching methods. Thus, the attitudes and abilities of the teacher need special attention when promoting
entrepreneurship education in HEIs.
Earlier research on social psychology has shown that attitudes indirectly affect behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). However, our research
shows that teachers’ attitudes have, in fact, a direct effect on behaviour regarding their teaching practices. In addition, these attitudes
can be influenced by top HEI managerial practices. When teachers understand and internalise the vision of entrepreneurship education
in HEIs, and when HEIs encourage and support entrepreneurship education in various ways, the outcome is seen in the practice of
entrepreneurship education. In addition, it is essential that teachers feel comfortable engaging in university-business collaboration, as
this also indirectly affects teaching practices (Joensuu-Salo, Peltonen, Oikkonen, et al., 2020). HEIs can offer resources (time and
money) for teachers to collaborate with companies.
Teachers’ entrepreneurial competence mediates the effect of the managerial practices of HEIs on teaching practice in entrepre­
neurship education, supporting our hypothesis 4. This means that managerial practices do not directly affect teaching practice—the
teacher’s competence is the key. However, perceived managerial practices have a vital role in boosting teachers’ entrepreneurial
competence and indirectly affecting teaching practice in entrepreneurship education. Interestingly, the effect of managerial practices
on teaching practices used in entrepreneurship education is not direct. This has not been examined in prior research.

6. Conclusions

Universities are at the centre of developing the skills and competencies of the future workforce. The European Union has identified
entrepreneurship as one of the key competencies in developing a knowledge-based society; hence, developing entrepreneurial capacity
in Europe is one of the key policy objectives (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). This study implies that if universities seek to implement effective
and varied entrepreneurship education, managerial practices should extensively support the entrepreneurial competence of teachers,
especially both affective and conative components. This includes the strategy and operational systems of HEIs. Further, it is crucial to
communicate management practices related to entrepreneurship promotion so that it is visible and recognised by teachers. For further
research, it would be interesting to study this phenomenon in a longitudinal setting and examine how present-day development ac­
tivities of managerial practices will appear in the future.
Our research has both theoretical and practical implications. From the theoretical point of view, our research shows that attitudes
can directly affect behaviour. This finding differs from the theories of social psychology—e.g. Ajzen (1991) argues that attitudes only
indirectly affect behaviour. Our result concerning the attitude-behaviour relationship may be due to different ways of measuring
attitudes and behaviour. However, our research puts the teacher’s attitude in the centre and shows that HEIs can influence teachers’
attitudes through managerial practices. From a practical point of view, our research suggests that if HEIs want to become entrepre­
neurial universities, they should support teachers with positive attitudes towards entrepreneurship education and design management
practices that support the implementation of entrepreneurship education. This means offering resources and different kinds of in­
centives for teachers and embedding entrepreneurship in the strategy. Furthermore, as the study conducted by Huang et al. (2020)
indicates, providing professional training for teachers is an effective way to improve teachers’ entrepreneurial competencies. However,
more emphasis must be put on the breadth and depth of the professional training and ensure that the training matches the professional
development needs of teachers in different career phases with different backgrounds, ages and teaching and entrepreneurship
experience. It is also crucial to encourage and provide time for teachers to develop their professional competencies and improve the
follow-up and evaluation mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of trainings and other managerial support.
This study has some limitations. The data was gathered from one country; hence, these results cannot be generalised. As there are
other variables influencing the choices teachers make, further in-depth and comparative international studies taking into consider­
ation different conceptualisations and goals of entrepreneurship education in HEIs, variation in HEI teachers’ education systems and
the role of HEIs as promotors of entrepreneurship in national and regional levels are needed. It should be noted that context should
always be considered—especially in entrepreneurship research (Welter, 2011). The context of this research is Finnish higher educa­
tion. In Finland, entrepreneurship is highlighted at all education levels, and universities have guidelines for implementing entre­
preneurship education.
In addition, there are some limitations concerning the methodology of this study. Path analysis is intended to shed light on the
causal model formulated by a researcher (Jeon, 2015); hence, it is dependent on the theory formation. In this research, the model was
constructed based on former studies related to management and entrepreneurship education. However, for some paths, there was no
previous research, which could constitute model formation limitations. Despite these limitations, this research generates new
knowledge about the various roles of HEI management and teachers in entrepreneurship education.

10
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Author statement

Sanna Joensuu-Salo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing original draft, Writing the revision of the
manuscript. Kati Peltonen: Writing the initial draft, Writing the revision of the manuscript. Minna Hämäläinen: Data, Investigation,
Writing original draft, Review and editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

References

Aamir, S., Atsan, N. F., & Erdem, A. F. (2019). A review of entrepreneurship education research in the special issues of Education+ Training journal. Education +
Training, 61(9), 1078–1099. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-02-2019-0027
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Annala, J., & Mäkinen, M. (2011). Research-teaching nexus in higher education in curriculum design. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 8(1), 3–25. http://ojs.library.
ubc.ca/index.php/tci/article/view/2441/183635.
Bacigalupo, M., Kampylis, P., Punie, Y., & Van den Brande, G. (2016). EntreComp: The entrepreneurship competence framework. JRC science for policy report. Publication
Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2791/593884. EUR 27939 EN.
Bannigan, K., & Watson, R. (2009). Reliability and validity in a nutshell. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 18, 3237–3243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2009.02939.x
Barab, S. A., Squire, K. D., & Dueber, W. (2000). A co-evolutionary model for supporting the emergence of authenticity. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 48(2), 37–62.
Baron, R. A. (2008). The role of affect in the entrepreneurial process. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 328–340.
Bennett, R. (2006). Business lecturers’ perceptions of the nature of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 12(3), 165–188.
Bikse, V., Riemere, I., & Rivza, B. (2014). The improvement of entrepreneurship education management in Latvia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, 69–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.388.
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.
Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. In Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Carrier, C. (2005). Pedagogical challenges in entrepreneurship education. In P. Kyrö, & C. Carrier (Eds.), The dynamics of learning entrepreneurship in a cross-cultural
university context (pp. 136–158). University of Tampere. Research Centre for Vocational and Professional Education.
Carvalho, L., Dominguinhos, P., & Costa, T. (2010). Creating an entrepreneurship ecosystem in higher education. In S. Soomro (Ed.), New achievements in technology
education and development. INTECH Open Access Publisher.
Chanphirun, S., & Van der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher
Education, 68(6), 891–908.
Cheng, M. Y., Chan, W. S., & Mahmood, A. (2009). The effectiveness of entrepreneurship education in Malaysia. Education + Training, 51(7), 555–566.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). Routledge-Falmer.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings. Houghton Mifflin.
Deakins, D., Glancey, K., Menter, I., & Wyper, J. (2005). Enterprise education: The role of head teachers. The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1
(2), 241–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-005-1131-9
Dodd, S. D., & Hynes, B. C. (2012). The impact of regional entrepreneurial contexts upon enterprise education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10),
741–766.
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. The Falmer Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group.
European Commission. (2012). Rethinking Education: Investing in skills forbetter socio-economic outcomes. European Commission: COM 669 final.
European Commission. (2018). Education and Training. Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on key competences for lifelong learning. ST/9009/2018/INIT OJ
C 189, 4.6.2018, pp. 1–13. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0012&from=EN/. (Accessed 18 January
2022).
Eurydice. (2016). Entrepreneurship education at school in Europe. European Commission/EACEA. Publications Office of the European Union.
Eyal, O., & Inbar, D. E. (2003). Developing a public school entrepreneurship inventory: Theoretical conceptualization and empirical examination. International Journal
of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 9(6), 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/13552550310501356.
Fayolle, A. (2013). Personal views on the future of entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development: International Journal, 25(7–8), 692–701.
Fejes, A., Nylund, M., & Wallin, J. (2019). How do teachers interpret and transform entrepreneurship education? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(4), 554–566.
Franco-Santos, M., & Doherty, N. (2017). Performance management and well-being: A close look at the changing nature of the UK higher education workplace.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 28(16), 2319–2350.
Gafar, A. (2020). Convergence between 21st century skills and entrepreneurship education in higher education institutes. International Journal of Higher Education, 9
(1), 218–229.
GEM (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor). (2022). Global entrepreneurship monitor 2021/2022. Global report: Opportunity amid disruption. GEM. Retrieved from
https://www.gemconsortium.org/reports/latest-global-report. (Accessed 18 January 2022).
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’ and ‘entrepreneurship’ paradigm for Learning: Creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing Things and new
Combinations of Knowledge. International Journal of Management review, 4(3), 233–269.
Gibb, A. (2011). Concepts into practice: Meeting the challenge of development of entrepreneurship educators around an innovative paradigm. The case of the
international entrepreneurship educators’ programme (IEEP). International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 17(2), 146–165.
Gibb, A., Haskins, G., & Robertson, I. (2013). Leading the entrepreneurial university: Meeting the entrepreneurial development needs of higher education institutions.
In A. Altmann, & B. Ebersberger (Eds.), Universities in change. Innovation, technology, and knowledge management (9-45). Springer.
Guerrero, M., Cunningham, J. A., & Urbano, D. (2015). Economic Impact of entrepreneurial universities’ activities: An exploratory study of the United Kingdom.
Research Policy, 44(3), 748–764.
Hämäläinen, M., Joensuu-Salo, S., Peltonen, K., & Raappana, A. (2022). HEI teacher perceptions of entrepreneurship education: The role of teachers’ entrepreneurial
backgrounds and HEI managerial support. In C. Henry, B. F. C. Coelho Gabriel, K. Sailer, E. Bernadó-Mansilla, & K. Lahikainen (Eds.), Strategies for the creation and
maintenance of entrepreneurial universities (pp. 114–141). IGI Global.

11
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Hämäläinen, M., Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2018). Principals promoting entrepreneurship education: The relationships between development activities and school
practises. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 21(2), 1–19.
Hämäläinen, M., Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2018). Principals’ utilization of external stakeholders in entrepreneurship education–Evidence from the general
education. Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri. Estonian Journal of Education, 6(2), 104–117.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.
Hannon, P. D. (2013). Why is the entrepreneurial university important? Journal of Innovation Management, 1(2), 10–17.
Hannon, P. (2018). On becoming and being an entrepreneurship educator: A personal reflection. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 30(7–8), 698–721.
Heinonen, J. (2007). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to teaching corporate entrepreneurship at university level. Education + Training, 49(4), 310–324.
Heinonen, J., & Poikkijoki, S. (2006). An entrepreneurial-directed approach to entrepreneurship education: Mission impossible? The Journal of Management
Development, 25(1), 80–94.
Henry, C., Hill, F. M., & Leitch, C. M. (2005). Evaluating entrepreneurship education and training: Implications for programme design. In A. Fayolle (Ed.), Handbook of
research in entrepreneurship education (Vol. 1, pp. 248–260). Edward Elgar.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, R. (2000). An instructional design framework for authentic learning environments. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48,
23–48.
Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Reeves, T. C. (2003). Patterns of engagement in authentic online learning environments. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 19
(1), 59–71.
Hilbe, J. (2009). Logistic regression models. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Hoskins, B., & Deakin Crick, R. (2010). Competences for learning to learn and active citizenship: Different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Journal
of Education, 45(1), 121–137.
Huang, Y., An, L., Liu, L., Zhuo, Z., & Wang, P. (2020). Exploring factors link to teachers’ competencies in entrepreneurship education. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(11),
Article 563381.
Hytti, U., & Heinonen, J. (2008). Enterprising individuals from an entrepreneurial university: Entrepreneurship programmes in non-business and business schools.
Liiketaloudellinen Aikakauskirja, 3, 325–340, 2008.
Jeon, J. (2015). The strengths and limitations of the statistical modeling of complex social phenomenon: Focusing on SEM, path analysis, or multiple regression
models. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 9(5), 1634–1642.
Joensuu-Salo, S., Peltonen, K., Hämäläinen, M., Oikkonen, E., & Raappana, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial teachers do make a difference – or do they? Industry and Higher
Education, 35(4), 536–546.
Joensuu-Salo, S., Peltonen, K., Oikkonen, E., Hämäläinen, M., & Arhio, K. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurial teaching: The mediating effect of the teacher’s ease of
performing university-business collaboration. Journal of Finnish Studies, 23(2), 74–103.
Jones, C., & Matlay, H. (2011). Understanding the heterogeneity of entrepreneurship education: Going beyond gartner. Education + Training, 53(8–9), 692–703.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner. Deakin University.
Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction: Introduction to psychometric design. Methune.
Korhonen, M., Komulainen, K., & Räty, H. (2012). Not everyone is cut out to be the entrepreneur type: How Finnish school teachers construct the meaning of
entrepreneurship education and the related abilities of the pupils. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(1), 1–19.
Kovač, D., Meško, M., & Bertoncelj, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial conative component of competences: The case of Slovenia. Organizacija, 43(6), 247–256.
Kuratko, D. F. (2005). The emergence of entrepreneurship education: Development, trends, and challenges. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 29(5), 577–597.
Kurczewska, A., Kyrö, P., Lagus, K., Kohonen, O., & Lindh-Knuutila, T. (2018). The interplay between cognitive, conative and affective constructs along the
entrepreneurial learning process. Education + Training, 60(7/8), 891–908.
Kyrö, P., Mylläri, J., & Seikkula-Leino, J. (2011). Meta processes of entrepreneurial and enterprising learning – the dialogue between cognitive, conative and affective
constructs. In O. J. Borch, A. Fayolle, P. Kyrö, & E. Ljunggren (Eds.), Entrepreneurship research in Europe: Evolving concepts and processes (pp. 56–84). Edward Elgar
Publishing.
Lahikainen, K., Kolhinen, J., Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2019). Challenges to the development of an entrepreneurial university ecosystem: The case of a Finnish
university campus. Industry and Higher Education, 33(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422218815806.
Lahikainen, K., Peltonen, K., Oikkonen, E., & Pihkala, T. (2021). Students’ perceptions of the entrepreneurial culture in Finnish higher education institutions. Industry
and Higher Education, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/09504222211066798, 0(0).
Lahikainen, K., Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2018). European approaches to enterprise education. In J. J. Turner, & G. Mulholland (Eds.), International enterprise
education: Perspectives on theory and practice. Routledge Studies in Entrepreneurship (Chapter 1).
Laukkanen, M. (2000). Exploring alternative approaches in high-level entrepreneurship education: Creating micro-mechanisms for endogenous regional growth.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 25(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/089856200283072
Leitch, C., Hazlett, S.-A., & Pittaway, L. (2012). Entrepreneurship education and context. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10), 733–740.
Lierse, S., Väänänen, I., Peltonen, Kiiskinen, K., Ward, C., & Wilson, B. (2022). Higher education institutions: Creating and implementing regional innovative
knowledge communities – a comparative study of Finland and Australia. In E. Sengupta, P. Blessinger, & N. Nezaami (Eds.), Governance and management in higher
education (innovations in higher education teaching and learning (Vol. 43, pp. 157–173). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-
364120220000043010.
Lindh, I., & Thorgren, S. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: The role of local business life. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 28(5–6), 313–336.
Lin, S., & Xu, Z. (2017). The factors that influence the development of entrepreneurship education based on the case of China. Management Decision, 55(7), 1351–1370.
Litwin, M. S. (1995). How to measure survey reliability and validity. Sage.
Manimala, M. J. (2017). Promoting entrepreneurship: The role of educators. In M. Manimala, & P. Thomas (Eds.), Entrepreneurship education (pp. 393–407). Springer.
Matlay, H. (2010). Introduction: Contemporary perspectives on entrepreneurship education and training. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 17(4),
10–18.
Menard, S. (2010). Logistic regression. From introductory to advanced concepts and applications. SAGE Publications.
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13–23.
Meyer, N., & de Jongh, J. (2008). The importance of entrepreneurship as a contributing factor to economic growth and development: the case of selected European
countries. Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, 10(4), 287–299. https://doi.org/10.22610/jebs.v10i4(J).2428.
Ministry of Education and Culture. (2017). Yrittäjyyslinjaukset. Retrieved from https://minedu.fi/yrittajyyslinjaukset. (Accessed 11 June 2020).
Montecinos, C., Walker, H., & Maldonado, F. (2015). School administrators and university practicum supervisors as boundary brokers for initial teacher education in
Chile. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.011
Morris, M. H., & Liguori, E. (2016). Preface: Teaching reason and the unreasonable. In M. H. Morris, & E. Ligouri (Eds.), Annals of entrepreneurship education and
pedagogy (pp. iv–xxii). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mueller, P. (2006). Exploring the knowledge filter: How entrepreneurship and university-industry relationships drive economic growth. Research Policy, 35(10),
1499–1508.
Mwasalwiba, E. S. (2010). Entrepreneurship education: A review of its objectives, teaching methods, and impact indicators. Education + Training, 52(1), 20–47.
Nabi, G., Linan, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research
agenda. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 16(2), 277–299.
Neck, H., & Corbett, A. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41.
Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70.
Nunan, D., & Lamb, C. (2000). The self-directed teacher – managing the learning process. Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
OECD. Skills and competences for entrepreneurship. i.a. https://www.oecd.org/cfe/leed/skills-for-entrepreneurship.htm

12
S. Joensuu-Salo et al. The International Journal of Management Education 21 (2023) 100767

Payton, O. D. (1988). R esearch: The validation of clinical practice (2nd ed.). FA Davis Company.
Peltonen, K. (2015). How can teachers’ entrepreneurial competences be developed? A collaborative learning perspective. Education + Training, 57(5), 492–511.
Peltonen, K. (2015). How can teachers’ entrepreneurial competences be developed? A collaborative learning perspective. Education Training, 57(5), 492–511. https://
doi.org/10.1108/ET-03-2014-0033.
Pihie, Z. A. L., & Bagheri, A. (2011). Are teachers qualified to teach entrepreneurship? Analysis of entrepreneurial attitude and self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Sciences,
11(18), 3308–3314.
Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 25
(5), 479–510.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and
recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Rooney, J. A., Gottlieb, P. H., & Newby-Clark, I. R. (2009). How support-related managerial behaviors influence employees. An integrated model. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 24(5), 410–427.
Ruohotie, P. (1999). Relationship-based learning in the work environment. In B. Beairsto, & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), The education of educators – enabling professional growth
for teachers and administrators (pp. 23–52). Research Centre for Vocational Education.
Ruohotie, P. (2000). Conative constructs in learning. In P. R. Pintrich, & P. Ruohotie (Eds.), Conative constructs and self-regulated learning (pp. 1–30). Research Centre
for Vocational Education.
Ruohotie, P., & Koiranen, M. (2001). Yrittäjyyskasvatus: Analyyseja, synteesejä ja sovelluksia. Aikuiskasvatus, 102–111, 02(2001).
Ruskovaara, E., Hämäläinen, M., & Pihkala, T. (2016). HEAD teachers managing entrepreneurship education – empirical evidence from general education. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 55, 155–164.
Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2013). Teachers implementing entrepreneurship education: Classroom practices. Education + Training, 55(2), 204–216.
Ruskovaara, E., & Pihkala, T. (2014). Entrepreneurship education in schools: Empirical evidence on the teacher’s role. Journal of Educational Research, 108(3), 1–14.
Seikkula-Leino, J., Satuvuori, T., Ruskovaara, E., & Hannula, H. (2015). How do Finnish teacher educators implement entrepreneurship education? Education +
Training, 57(4), 392–404.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Sim, J., & Arnell, P. (1993). Measurement validity in physical therapy research. Physical Therapy, 73(2), 102–110.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative operations (4th ed.). Free Press.
Slåtten, T. (2009). The effect of managerial practice on employee-perceived service quality. The role of emotional satisfaction. Managing Service Quality, 19(4),
431–455.
Smith, A., Collins, L., & Hannon, P. (2006). Embedding new entrepreneurship programmes in UK higher education institutions: Challenges and considerations.
Education + Training, 48(8/9), 555–567.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational
psychology (pp. 243–310). Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
Steiner, D. (2005). Finding our way: An introduction to path analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 50(2), 115–122.
Van Dam, K., Schipper, M., & Runhaar, P. (2010). Developing a competency-based framework for teachers’ entrepreneurial behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education,
26(4), 965–971.
Varamäki, E., Joensuu, S., Tornikoski, E., & Viljamaa, A. (2015). The development of entrepreneurial potential among young people: An empirical investigation of the
development of intentions over time. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 22(3), 563–589.
Vipunen. (2022). Education statistics Finland. https://vipunen.fi/en-gb/.
Walter, S. G., & Dohse, D. (2012). Why mode and regional context matter for entrepreneurship education. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(9–10),
807–835.
Welter, F. (2011). Contextualizing entrepreneurship – conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
Zamani, N., & Mohammadi, M. (2017). Entrepreneurial learning as experienced by agricultural graduate entrepreneurs. Higher Education, 76(2), 301–316.

13