Lessons for Designing an Entrepreneurship Curriculum

Journal of Economics, Management & Agricultural Development Vol. 1, No. 1 99

1 Department of Agribusiness Management and Entrepreneurship, College of Economics and Management, University of the Philippines Los Baños 2 Decision Sciences and Innovation Department, College of Business, De La Salle University - Science and Technology Complex

Lessons for Designing an Entrepreneurship Curriculum: The Case of Two Schools in Laguna, Philippines

Dianne I. Espiritu1, Dinah Pura T. Depositario1, Nohreen Ethel P. Manipol1, Reynaldo L. Tan1, Glenn N. Baticados1

and Earl John C. Elizondo2

Abstract

The study compares the personal entrepreneurial competency (PEC) levels of BS in Agribusiness Management (BS ABM) students of UP Los Baños (UPLB) with the PEC levels of the BS in Entrepreneurship (BSE) students of De La Salle University-Science and Technology Complex (DLSU-STC). A comparison of the PECs of the two groups can generate insights which can serve as a source of valuable lessons for the design of the curricular revisions of UPLB’s BS ABM program. Demographic information and responses to 55 PEC-related statements were gathered from students of different year levels in the two schools. The data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U test and ordinal logistic analysis and marginal effect analysis.

Results reveal that that, except for persistence and goal setting, the BSE students have significantly higher mean scores in all the PECs compared with the BS ABM students. The differences in PEC mean scores are more highly significant between the sophomores of the two schools.

The study recommends that the design and sequence of entrepreneurship courses at the Department of Agribusiness Management and Entrepreneurship (DAME) - College of Economics and Management (CEM), UPLB should enable students to experience the whole entrepreneurial process. It should also promote the holding of informal activities which can capture the authenticity of real entrepreneurial situations like business plan competitions and mentoring relationships.

Keywords: personal entrepreneurial competencies (PECs), entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial skills, entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship curriculum

Introduction Entrepreneurship is now finding its way into the formal education as a subject or

as a full degree course at the tertiary level. Unlike traditional business courses, which have developed and evolved over many decades in universities all over the world, entrepreneurship at the tertiary level is a relatively recent development (Gatchalian 2010). In the Philippines, entrepreneurship as a formal degree program was initiated by the Commission of Higher Education (CHED) in 2005 (Velasco 2013).

The recognition of entrepreneurship as a discipline is helping to promote the idea that certain competencies can be stimulated, trained and potentiated to become an entrepreneur (Marques and Albuquerque 2012). One set of competencies is collectively labeled as the Personal Entrepreneurial Competencies (PECs). The PECs profile the mindset and behavioral traits of entrepreneurs (Diaz et al. 1997). Boyatzis (1982) adds that PECs can enable entrepreneurs to achieve and maintain business success.

100 Espiritu, Depositario, Manipol, Tan, Baticados, and Elizondo

One of the goals of entrepreneurship education is to instill entrepreneurial competencies among students that will better prepare them for an entrepreneurial life (Izquierdo and Deschoolmeester 2008). The De La Salle University–Science and Technology Complex (DLSU-STC) located in Biñan City, Laguna is one such school in the Philippines aiming to produce would-be entrepreneurs with its BS in Entrepreneurship (BSE) degree.

On the other hand, the BS ABM program started in the University of the Philippines as a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture major in Agribusiness Management and was a joint undertaking of the College of Business Administration in UP Diliman and the UP College of Agriculture in Los Baños from 1966 to 1974. In 1975, the newly-created Institute of Agricultural Development and Administration (renamed College of Economics and Management) assumed sole administration of the program. The program was officially recognized as BS in Agricultural Business in 1978 and in June 1983 was renamed BS in Agribusiness Management.

The Department of Agribusiness Management and Entrepreneurship (DAME) is now in the process of revising its BS in Agribusiness Management (BS ABM) curriculum. Among the unit’s most important revisions are the renaming of the BS in Agribusiness Management (BS ABM) to BS in Agribusiness Management and Entrepreneurship (BS ABME) and the proposed institution of entrepreneurship courses. A comparison of the PECs of DAME students with the PECs of students studying at DLSU-STC, an institution with an established entrepreneurship curriculum, can generate insights which can serve as a valuable input to DAME’s curricular revisions.

Specifically, this study aimed to answer the following questions: 1) What are the personal profiles of DLSU-STC BSE and UPLB DAME BS ABM students?; 2) What are the Personal Entrepreneurial Competencies (PEC) levels of DLSU-STC BSE and UPLB DAME BS ABM students?; 3) Are there significant differences in the PECs of the BSE and the BS ABM students?; 4) What are the factors that influence the PECs of the BSE and the BS ABM students?; 5) What is the current design of the entrepreneurship curriculum of DLSU-STC?; and 6) What improvements in the design of its curricula and extracurricular activities should DAME-CEM incorporate in order to improve their students’ PEC levels?

This study also hopes to provide more empirical evidence on the role of entrepreneurial education programs and trainings in developing and enhancing students’ PECs. Some researchers have proposed a positive link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial attitudes, intention or action, but the evidence is still not strong (Gibb Dyer 1994; Robinson et al. 1991; Krueger and Brazeal 1994, as cited by von Graevenitz et al. 2010). Entrepreneurial Competencies and Their Determinants

An action, or specific behavior of an individual, is manifested by competencies that are an expression of his/her characteristic or several characteristics (Boyatzis 1982). Among entrepreneurs, different levels of entrepreneurial competencies are exhibited by individuals who start businesses or carry out changes in existing organizations and add value through their opportunistic vision and effort (Bird 1995).


Mcber Company and David McClelland initially identified 14 PECs. The EMPRETEC, a United Nations program for small business grouped some of the PECs and came up with a refined list composed of 10 Personal Entrepreneurial Competencies (PECs). The 10 PECs are: 1) opportunity seeking, 2) risk-taking, 3) demand for efficiency and quality, 4) commitment to work contract, 5) persistence, 6) information seeking, 7) goal setting, 8) systematic planning and monitoring, 9) persuasion and networking and 10) self-confidence. The 10 PECs can be divided into clusters. Cluster 1 consists of Achieving Behaviors that are exhibited when someone has developed high achievement motivation. This cluster is composed of opportunity-seeking, risk-taking, persistence, commitment to work contract and demand for efficiency and quality. Cluster 2 contains Organizational and Planning Behaviors which are needed to translate high achievement into actual day-to-day activities. This cluster includes information seeking, goal setting and systematic planning and monitoring. The last cluster, Cluster 3 is composed of the Power Behaviors and includes self-confidence and persuasion and networking (Diaz et al. 1997).

There have been studies which sought to understand the influence of the antecedents of entrepreneurial competencies. Bird (1995) suggested that education, prior work experience and industry experience as factors that could influence the development of entrepreneurial competencies.

In explaining how entrepreneurs develop, Schmitt-Rodermund (2004) cited Holland’s RIASEC vocational personality model which assumes that the development of a certain type (which includes the Entrepreneurial (E-) type) into a certain career, is fueled by the interplay of two different sources. One source is the set of characteristics children are born with, ranging from their sex to basic personality traits and the second source is the contextual input. A major contextual input is the one provided by parents who encourage and reinforce certain activities and help children to develop interests, preferences and competencies.

On the other hand, recent research made on the impact of entrepreneurship education indicates conclusively that it contributes significantly to the development of entrepreneurial attitudes and skills. Charney and Libecap (2000) found that entrepreneurship education contributes to risk-taking and the formation of new ventures. On average, entrepreneurship graduates are three times more likely than non-entrepreneurship graduates to start new business ventures. Lepoutre et al. (2010) found that entrepreneurship programs have a significant effect on creativity, the self-perceived feasibility to start a company, perceived desirability of an entrepreneurial career, a propensity to act and a positive attitude towards entrepreneurs.


Pfeifer and Sušac (2013) pointed out, however, that though there is evidence that education in general positively influences attitudes, capabilities, intentions and commitment of the person toward entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurship programs’ design is far more advanced than their valuation; more evidence is therefore needed to validate this contention. This study hopes to lend support to the idea that entrepreneurship education contributes to PEC development and enhancement. Methodology

Descriptive research design was used to determine the entrepreneurial competency levels of DLSU-STC BSE and UPLB BS ABM students and the demographic variables which were related to them. The data for the BSE students were initially gathered by one of the researchers, a faculty member of DLSU- STC College of Business. On the other hand, the UPLB DAME-CEM student data came from the data set of Capuno (2014). Both data sets were collected during the latter part of 2013.

The demographic profile of BSE and BSABM students such as name, gender, age, business exposure, student classification, birth order and number of siblings were collected. A separate survey questionnaire composed of 55 statements was used to gather the PEC ratings (i.e., 5- Always, 4 – Usually, 3- Sometimes, 4 – Rarely and 1-Never) of the students.

The score per PEC trait was computed by adding the score associated with a PEC and adding a correction factor (i.e., 6). The interpretation given to the score per PEC was: 19 and above – Strong, 16 to 18 – Moderate and 15 and below – Weak.

Mann-Whitney U-Test was used to test for the significance in differences in mean scores between the students of the two schools. In addition, ordinal logistic analysis and marginal effect analysis were conducted to determine the demographic factors which affect the probability of a student having a strong, moderate or weak PEC level. Results and Discussion Profile of the BSE Students and the BS ABM Students

Out of the 62 BS in Entrepreneurship (BSE) students enrolled at the time of the study, a total of 41 (66%) participated in the study, seven of whom were seniors, 18 juniors, 15 sophomores and one freshman. Majority of the students (59%) were aged 20 to 24 years old. In terms of sibling order, it was noted that more than half (56%) of the students were the eldest among the siblings. Most of the participants had either one (29%) or two (29%) siblings. A large percentage of the respondents from the school were female (73%). A substantial number of the BSE students reported having family businesses (41%) but only a few claimed to have been involved in these businesses (10%) (Table 1).


Table 1. Demographic profile of DLSU-STC BSE students

Variable Year Level

Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Total % (n = 1) (n = 15) (n = 18 (n = 7) (n = 41)

Age (years) Below 20 - 11 2 3 16 39 20-24 - 4 16 4 24 59 25 and above 1 - - - 1 2

Sibling Rank First 1 7 10 5 22 56 Second - 2 7 1 10 24 Third - 1 1 1 3 7 Fourth - 3 - - 3 7 Fifth - 1 - - 1 2 Sixth - 1 - - 1 2

Number of Siblings None - 3 3 - 6 15 One - 6 3 3 12 29 Two - 3 6 3 12 29 Three - 2 3 1 6 15 Four 1 1 1 - 3 7 Five - - 1 - 1 2 Six - - - - - - Seven - - 1 - 1 2

Gender Male 1 9 1 - 11 27 Female - 6 17 7 30 73

Family Business (FB) With FB 1 5 8 3 17 41 Without FB 1 11 10 3 23 59

With Business Experience (BE)

With BE - 1 3 - 4 10 Without BE 1 14 15 7 37 90


Variable

Year Level Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Total %

(n = 44) (n = 39) (n = 60) (n = 61) (n = 204) Age (years)

Below 20 44 36 43 17 140 69 20-24 0 2 17 43 62 30 25 and above 0 1 0 1 2 1

Sibling Rank First 15 17 28 19 79 39 Second 10 7 5 12 34 17 Third 7 5 3 4 19 9 Fourth 1 2 4 5 12 6 Fifth 2 0 1 1 4 2 Sixth 0 1 1 18 20 10 Youngest 8 5 16 2 31 15 Only 1 2 2 0 5 2

Number of Siblings None 1 3 3 2 9 4 One 12 7 21 18 58 28 Two 13 17 21 18 69 34 Three 13 5 6 10 34 17 Four 1 2 6 12 21 10 Five and above 4 5 3 1 13 6

Gender Male 16 13 19 15 63 31 Female 28 26 41 46 141 69

Family Business (FB) With FB 7 15 24 17 63 31 Without FB 37 24 36 44 141 69

With Business Experience With BE 3 8 9 19 39 19 Without BE 41 31 51 42 165 81

Table 2. Demographic profile of UPLB BS ABM Students

The total number of respondents was 204 or 64.8% of all the BS ABM students enrolled as of December 2013. Out of the 204 respondents, 44 were freshmen, 39 sophomores, 60 juniors and 61 seniors. Majority of the students (69%) were below 20 years old. In terms of sibling order, more than one-third (39%) of the students were the eldest among the siblings. Most of the participants had either two (34%) or one (28%) sibling(s). Across year level, there were more female than male respondents, with the females comprising more than two-thirds (69%) of the sample. Majority of the students in the sample reported having no family business (69%) and having no business experience (81%) (Table 2).


PEC Levels of the BSE and the BS ABM Student-Respondents Table 3 summarizes the mean scores of the BSE students across all the PECs. The

data for the freshman were dropped from this analysis since only one freshman was surveyed.

In general, the BSE students were found to be strong in all competencies but possessed moderate levels of persistence, risk-taking, goal setting and self-confidence.

Among the year levels, the sophomores were strong in most PECs except for opportunity seeking, goal setting and self- confidence. The juniors were stronger in terms of opportunity seeking compared to the sophomores but lower in terms of persistence, risk-taking and persuasion and networking.

Unexpectedly, the PEC mean scores of seniors were lower than the mean scores of the sophomores and the juniors. The seniors were however higher in terms of opportunity seeking. Table 3. Summary of the personal entrepreneurial competency scores of BSE

students

Personal Entrepreneurial Competency (PEC)

Year Level Sophomore (n = 15)

Junior (n = 18)

Senior (n =7)

Total (n = 40)

Opportunity Seeking 18.40 19.67 20.43 19.44

Moderate Strong Strong Strong Persistence 19.33 18.44 17.29 18.59 Strong Moderate Moderate Moderate Commitment to Work Contract 20.20 19.06 18.00 19.37

Strong Strong Moderate Strong Demand for Quality and Efficiency 20.27 19.61 18.86 19.85

Strong Strong Moderate Strong Risk - taking 19.60 18.22 17.00 18.59 Strong Moderate Moderate Moderate Goal Setting 18.93 18.89 18.29 18.88 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Information Seeking 20.27 20.39 20.14 20.44 Strong Strong Strong Strong

Systematic Planning and Monitoring

19.67 Strong

19.44 Strong

18.86 Moderate

19.51 Strong

Persuasion and Networking 19.47 18.83 18.14 19.10

Strong Moderate Moderate Strong Self - confidence 18.13 18.61 17.71 18.27 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Note: PEC level - 19 and above (Strong), 16 to 18 (Moderate), and 15 and below (Weak)


Table 4 presents the mean scores of the BS ABM students across all the PECs. As the lone BSE freshman-respondent was dropped, the responses of the BS ABM freshmen were likewise no longer considered. This resulted in the total number of BS ABM program respondents being 160. The BS ABM students were composed of 39 sophomores, 60 juniors and 61 seniors. They were moderate in terms of all the PECs but in the case of the juniors and seniors, strong in terms of goal setting. It was noted that the BS ABM students across all year levels were weak in terms of persuasion and networking. Table 4. Summary of the personal entrepreneurial competency scores of BS

ABM students


Year Level Sophomore

(n = 39) Junior

(n = 60) Senior (n= 61)

Total (n = 160)

Opportunity Seeking 16.31 16.93 16.79 16.52 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Persistence 17.21 18.03 18.00 17.74 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Commitment to Work Contract 17.92 17.47 17.39 17.54

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Demand for Quality and Efficiency 16.64 16.88 16.97 16.98

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Risk - taking 16.97 17.32 16.72 17.06 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Goal Setting 18.51 19.30 19.38 18.93 Moderate Strong Strong Strong Information Seeking 18.18 18.75 18.61 18.58 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Systematic Planning and Monitoring

17.59

Moderate

17.65

Moderate

17.98

Moderate

17.81

Moderate Persuasion and Networking 15.36 15.75 15.39 15.49 Weak Weak Weak Weak Self - confidence 16.13 16.78 16.34 16.34 Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

Note: PEC level - 19 and above (Strong), 16 to 18 (Moderate), and 15 and below (Weak)

The summary of the mean PEC scores of the students from both schools and the results of the Mann-Whitney U test (to test for the significance of differences in mean scores between the two groups) are shown in Table 5. The BSE students had significantly higher scores across all competencies than BS ABM students, except for persistence and goal setting.

A possible contributory factor to this result is the nature of the curriculum of the BS Entrepreneurship program which focuses on enhancing and solidifying the entrepreneurial background of the students.


Note: *** denotes variables significant at 1 % level PEC level - 19 and above (Strong), 16 to 18 (Moderate), and 15 and below (Weak)

As the EIM Business & Policy Research Report (Gibcus et al. 2012) points out, entrepreneurship education in EU Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) had a positive impact on the entrepreneurial key competencies of HEI alumnus. Table 5. Personal entrepreneurial competency mean scores of BSE and BS ABM

students

A year level comparison was done to determine whether there were significant

differences in the PECs of sophomore, junior and senior BSE students with their BS ABM counterparts. In the case of sophomores, the BSE students rated significantly higher in all competencies except for goal setting. It was noted that BSE sophomore students were strong in most of the competencies while BS ABM sophomore students registered mostly moderate levels in almost all the PECs and was even weak in terms of persuasion and networking (Table 6).


Group BSE

Students (n = 40)

BS ABM Students (n= 160)

p – value

Opportunity Seeking 19.44 16.52 0.000*** Strong Moderate Persistence 18.59 17.74 0.116 Moderate Moderate Commitment to Work Contract 19.37 17.54 0.000*** Strong Moderate Demand for Quality Efficiency 19.85 16.98 0.000*** Strong Moderate Risk - taking 18.59 17.06 0.000*** Moderate Moderate Goal Setting 18.88 18.93 0.414 Moderate Strong Information Seeking 20.44 18.58 0.000*** Strong Moderate Systematic Planning and Monitoring 19.51 17.81 0.000*** Strong Moderate Persuasion and Networking 19.10 15.49 0.000*** Strong Weak Self - confidence 18.27 16.34 0.000*** Moderate Moderate


Table 6. Comparison of PEC mean scores of BSE and BS ABM sophomores


Group

p-value BSE Sophomores

( n= 15)

BS ABM Sophomores

(n= 39) Opportunity Seeking 18.40 16.31 0.012** Moderate Moderate Persistence 19.33 17.21 0.005*** Strong Moderate

Commitment to Work Contract 20.20 17.92 0.003*** Strong Moderate Demand for Quality and Efficiency 20.27 16.64 0.000***

Strong Moderate Risk - taking 19.60 16.97 0.003*** Strong Moderate Goal Setting 18.93 18.51 0.838 Moderate Moderate Information Seeking 20.27 18.18 0.032** Strong Moderate Systematic Planning and Monitoring 19.67 17.59 0.009***

Strong Moderate Persuasion and Networking 19.47 15.36 0.000*** Strong Weak Self - confidence 18.13 16.13 0.007*** Moderate Moderate

Note: ** and *** denote variables significant at 5% and 1% levels, respectively PEC level - 19 and above (Strong), 16 to 18 (Moderate), and 15 and below (Weak)

A similar trend can be observed in the comparison of junior BSE and BS ABM students (Table 7). The differences in the mean scores for all PECs were statistically significant except for persistence and goal setting. Similar to sophomores, it can be noted the BS ABM juniors were also weak in persuasion and networking.


Table 7. Comparison of PEC mean scores of BSE and BS ABM juniors


Group p-value BSE Juniors

(n= 18) BS ABM Juniors

(n= 60) Opportunity Seeking 19.67 16.93 0.000 *** Strong Moderate Persistence 18.44 18.03 0.599 Moderate Moderate Commitment to Work Contract

19.06 17.47 0.010 ***

Strong Moderate Demand for Quality and Efficiency

19.61 16.88 0.000 ***

Strong Moderate Risk - taking 18.22 17.32 0.078 * Moderate Moderate Goal Setting 18.89 19.30 0.243 Moderate Strong Information Seeking 20.39 18.75 0.011 ** Strong Moderate Systematic Planning and Monitoring

19.44 17.65 0.002 ***

Strong Moderate Persuasion and Networking

18.83 15.75 0.000 ***

Moderate Weak Self - confidence 18.61 16.78 0.006 *** Moderate Moderate Note: *, ** and *** denote variables significant at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively PEC level - 19 and above (Strong), 16 to 18 (Moderate), and 15 and below (Weak)

Unlike the results of the comparison of sophomore and junior students, the analysis of the differences in mean PEC scores between the BSE and BS ABM senior students exhibited an unexpected trend (Table 8). Among the 10 competencies, there were only two competencies where there was a significant difference between the mean PECs of BSE and BS ABM senior students: opportunity seeking and persuasion and networking.


Table 8. Comparison of PEC mean scores of BSE and BS ABM seniors


Group p-value BSE Seniors

(n = 7) BS ABM Senior

(n = 61) Opportunity Seeking 20.43 16.79 0.000*** Strong Moderate Persistence 17.29 18.00 0.320 Moderate Moderate Commitment to Work Contract 18.00 17.39 0.759 Moderate Moderate Demand for Quality and Efficiency

18.86 16.97 0.112

Moderate Moderate Risk - taking 17.00 16.72 0.959 Moderate Moderate Goal Setting 18.29 19.38 0.209 Moderate Strong Information Seeking 20.14 18.61 0.322 Strong Moderate Systematic Planning and Monitoring

18.86 17.98 0.235

Moderate Moderate Persuasion and Networking 18.14 15.39 0.031**

Moderate Weak Self - confidence 17.71 16.34 0.134 Moderate Moderate Note: ** and *** denote variables significant at 5% and 1% levels, respectively PEC level - 19 and above (Strong), 16 to 18 (Moderate), and 15 and be low (Weak)

Comparison of Factors Related to the PECs of the BSE and the BS ABM Students

Ordinal logistic analysis and marginal effect analysis were conducted to identify the demographic factors that affect the probability of a BSE student having a strong, moderate or weak PEC level. Table 9 shows that the variables which were found to be significantly related to the levels of selected PECs among the BSE students were year level, number of siblings, birth order and gender.


Table 9. Demographic factors related to the PECs of BSE students Demographic Variable

Personal Entrepreneurial Competency (PEC) Opportunity Seeking (R2 = .135)

Risk - taking (R2 = .159)

Goal Setting (R2 = .698)

Information Seeking (R2 = .354)

Persuasion and Networking (R2 = .645)

Year Level Coefficient 1.798 Odds Ratio 6.035 P value 0.043**

Number of Siblings

Coefficient -.5223 -.501

Odds Ratio .593 .606 P value 0.070* 0.082* Birth Order Coefficient 1.246 Odds Ratio 3.477 P value 0.098* Gender (0-F, 1-M) Coefficient -3.554 -2.445 Odds Ratio .0286 .0867 P value 0.063* 0.069*

Note: * and ** denote variables significant at 10% and 5% levels, respectively

Results showed that year level affects the opportunity seeking competency of the students and for a one-level increase in classification, the odds of students having strong possession of opportunity seeking competency versus moderate and weak possession is 6.035 times greater, holding other variables constant. As a student moves to a higher year level, the chance of having a stronger opportunity seeking score increases as well. This could be because as a student gains more exposure to entrepreneurship through formal and informal education, they become more psychologically prepared to engage in business.

Likewise, as the number of siblings of a student increases, the odds of having strong levels of risk - taking and goal setting competencies decreases by 0.593 and 0.606, respectively. It may be deduced that as the number of siblings increases, the number of people who are financially dependent on the student’s parents as well as on the student himself increases, thus there may be a pressure on the student to settle on less risky situations.


The analysis revealed that as students’ birth order increases by one level, the odds of students being strong in information seeking versus the moderate and weak level is 3.477 times greater, holding other variables constant. This means that the younger the student is among the siblings, the better he or she is in information seeking. This result was unexpected as studies show that first-born children are more likely to become entrepreneurs than the youngest and middle children (Diaz et al. 1997).

Male students were found to have better information seeking and persuasion and networking skills than females. For females, the odds of having strong information seeking and persuasion and networking versus the combined moderate and low levels are 0.0286 times and 0.0867 times lower than for males respectively, holding the other variables constant.

Table 10 contains the demographic factors found to be significantly related to levels of selected PECs among the BS ABM students. Family business and ownership were found to be determinants of opportunity seeking and demand for quality and efficiency competency levels.

Among the BS ABM students, those without family business had higher opportunity seeking, information seeking, demand for quality and efficiency and risk - taking competencies than those with family business. Although this result was unexpected, a possible explanation to this, particularly in relation to risk - taking, is that risk attitudes are relatively less important among individuals with self-employed parents as the uncertainty about self-employment is reduced by having witnessed the self-employment experience of the parents (Skriabikova et al. 2013).

On the other hand, among those without business experience, more specifically those who do have their own business, the odds of having strong information seeking and demand for quality and efficiency versus the combined moderate and low levels were 2.01 times and 1.74 times lower than for those with their own business, respectively, given that the other variables are held constant.

Table 10. Demographic factors related to PECs of BS ABM students

Demographic Variable


Opportunity Seeking

Information Seeking

Persuasion and

Networking

Demand for Quality and Efficiency

Risk - taking

Gender (0-F , 1-M)

Coefficient -0.920* Odds Ratio -0.4 Family Business Coefficient

-0.585** -1.1029*** -0.848*** -0.576**

Odds Ratio 0.56 0.33 -0.43 -0.56 Business Experience

Coefficient 0.697** 0.556* Odds Ratio -2.01 -1.74 Note: *, ** and *** denote variables significant at 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively


Current Design of the Entrepreneurship Curriculum of DLSU- STC

Based on the premise that entrepreneurial education programs also develop and/or enhance students’ PEC levels, a closer examination at DLSU-STC’s BSE curriculum could help provide insights on the study’s results.

The Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship (BSE) program of DLSU- STC is designed “to provide the students with a solid background on entrepreneurship and mastery of technology through a rigorous academic preparation and through a unique blend of mentorship program and industry-academic collaboration”. The curriculum observes the minimum requirements for a Bachelor of Science in Entrepreneurship curriculum as specified under CHED Memorandum Order No. 17 Series of 2005. The BS Entrepreneurship program is designed to prepare students to start and manage their own business by enhancing their competencies such as identifying opportunities, developing and preparing business plans, as well as the actual preparation and management of a business. The mandated curriculum involves the functional areas of planning, starting and operating a business. It covers a total of 142 units, 51 of which are general education courses, 21 business core subjects and 55 units of core entrepreneurship courses. Despite the required course specifications, universities are free to make their own specifications in the implementation of the program as long as the basic specifications are met. For instance, the higher education institution (HEI) has a liberty to change the subject names as long as the course descriptions are the same, or offer electives/specialized subjects apart from the list provided in the memorandum. With regard to the faculty.

The more important entrepreneurship core courses are as follows:

Entrepreneurial Behavior, Business Software Application, Identifying Venture Opportunities I and II, Business Plan I and II, Business Plan Implementation I and II and Entrepreneurial Integration. Entrepreneurial Behavior. This course allows students to learn the appropriate attitudes and conducts of a successful entrepreneur. In this course, the students will be able to perform self-assessment to determine their level of predisposition to being entrepreneurial. The course will also include personal entrepreneurial competencies, management styles, business ethics, responsibilities and duties of entrepreneur. The course can be taken by students as early as their sophomore year, which is deemed appropriate as the student may be able to assess themselves early in the program. Business Software Application. This subject provides the knowledge and skills necessary to appreciate and use common business software applications available for usage. Specifically, it aims to teach students how to use software applications in common business processes, design simple report and form layouts, create company manuals or design simple table definitions. In this technological era, it is essential that entrepreneurs learn to utilize the available software and incorporate them in their entrepreneurial operations and thereby gain efficiency and competitive advantage.


Identifying Venture Opportunities I. This is the course in which students will begin to seek business opportunities. Under the BSE program of DLSU-STC, a student is required to start and operate a real business before the student graduates from the university. The business project starts at the third term of the sophomore year. In this course, the students will learn about the steps/stages in project planning, evaluation of external factors affecting entrepreneurial activities, internal factors important in identifying business opportunities; in addition, environmental scanning is demonstrated to the students. At the end of the course, the students are expected to able to apply project planning. Identifying Venture Opportunities II. This course immediately follows Identifying Venture Opportunities I and it is in this course where the students will be able to apply project identification/selection techniques and actually identify and select the business opportunity that the student would like to pursue. Business Plan I and II. At the start of the second term of the students’ junior years, they are required to take Business Plan I and Business Plan II where they will learn the features of a feasibility study and a business plan including marketing, operations, personnel and financial plans. In addition, they will learn to evaluate their plans and determine their viability as availability of resources is considered. As these students complete the Business Plan II, they should have produced a complete business plan which they can realize in the Business Implementation courses. Business Plan Implementation I and II. These courses start in the third term of junior year and end in the first term of senior year, the period when the students actually implement the business plan and are expected to set up the project as a business activity where actual revenue generation can be realized. Students are also exposed to the legal terms of setting up of a business such as business registration at the municipal hall and acquisition of Tax Identification Number (TIN) at the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). The need to register with appropriate government offices is an important activity that students must learn and experience in the process of setting up a business. All the aforementioned activities may have possibly contributed to the strong level of the juniors’ demand for quality efficiency, persuasion and networking, persistence and risk taking competencies. Entrepreneurship Integration. Students are required to take this during the final term. This subject aims to summarize and integrate all the entrepreneurial courses taken during the course of the program. One to three successful entrepreneurs are invited to relate their experiences. In addition, students evaluate themselves at these sessions to assess their entrepreneurial traits and behavior.

From the above description of the entrepreneurship core courses at DLSU-STC, it is apparent that the design and sequence of the courses (starting out in the sophomore year) will result in a build-up of entrepreneurial knowledge and skills – from the development of an entrepreneurial mindset, opportunity identification, feasibility study preparation, business planning, setting-up of the business, business start-up operations up to business evaluation.


PEC-enhancing Extra-Curricular Activities at DLSU-STC

The DLSU-STC, apart from its classroom lectures and examinations, promotes activities that may improve the PEC levels of its students. As Pfeifer (2013) has noted, formal educational programs on entrepreneurship tend to underestimate the impact of non-formal or informal learning even though the latter might be very important for entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE). The following are the business-related extracurricular activities that students experience while taking the program: Business Week. In November every year, the various student organizations of the College of Business (COB) organize an activity called Business Week. In this event, several activities are held - business seminars, open forums regarding various entrepreneurial issues and games and competitions. An example of a competition is the COBMAZING RACE where the students are provided with various situations of gains and losses, and their knowledge is tested by how they deal with each situation. The objectives of these activities are to introduce COB students to real life business situations, to develop the skills of COB students in handling and managing resources needed in one’s business, and to build relationships and networks among students. Bazaars. An annual bazaar is held by the university wherein several entrepreneurs from outside the school are invited to showcase their products. Nevertheless, this is also a venue for the BS in Entrepreneurship students to exhibit their Business Implementation II projects. Seminars and Field Trips. Several courses hold field trips within the country to provide students on-site exposure to real businesses. In addition, several entrepreneurs, at times DLSU alumni, are invited by the college to give a talk about certain entrepreneurial issues or about how they became successful in their chosen businesses. These activities aim to provide inspiration to students and to spur their aspiration to become successful entrepreneurs in the future. Collaborations and Linkages. Being located near technoparks, DLSU-STC has made some linkages and partnerships with companies around the campus. Students benefit from these linkages through on-the-job-trainings, field trips and, in the case of some majors, employment. These companies could be potential consumers and suppliers of the enterprises being established by the students.

In relation to the above discussion about extra-curricular activities at DLSU-STC, it is evident that the informal activities attempt to capture the authenticity of real entrepreneurial situations. That the school is strategically located makes it easier for the school to involve the nearby companies in its informal activities.


Implications of Results and Recommendations The study aimed to compare the personal entrepreneurial competency (PEC)

levels of BS in Agribusiness Management students (BS ABM) of UPLB with the PEC levels of the BS in Entrepreneurship (BSE) students of De La Salle University-Science and Technology Complex (DLSU-STC). This comparison was made on the premise that there is a positive link between entrepreneurship education and PEC levels and that the insights to be gained from the study can serve as a source of valuable lessons for the design of DAME-CEM’s curricular revisions.

In relation to the personal profiles of the two groups, the sophomore, junior and senior DLSU-STC students were found to be older in age compared with the UPLB students. In terms of sibling order, there were more BSE students who were the eldest in their family. For both schools, the majority of the respondents were female. Lastly, there was a larger percentage of DLSU-STC students who reported that their families were engaged in a business.

The BSE students had significantly higher mean scores across all competencies than BS ABM students, except for persistence and goal setting. The BSE sophomore students’ PEC mean scores were significantly higher across all the competencies vis-a-vís the BS ABM sophomore students who registered moderate levels in all of the PECs and were even weak in terms of persuasion and networking. Similarly, the BSE junior students’ competency mean scores were significantly higher vis-a-vís their BS ABM counterparts. Unexpectedly, there were only two competencies (opportunity seeking and persuasion and networking) where significant differences between the mean PECs of the BSE and the BS ABM seniors were registered.

Meanwhile, the demographic variables which were identified through ordinal logistic analysis and marginal effect analysis to affect the probability of a student having a certain PEC level (i.e., strong, moderate or weak) for selected PECs of BSE students were year level, number of siblings, birth order and gender. The demographic factors found to be significantly related to levels of selected PECs among the BS ABM students were gender, family business and business experience.

A review of the DLSU-STC curriculum revealed that the BSE majors start taking entrepreneurship as early as their sophomore year. The courses are sequenced in such a way that students go through the whole entrepreneurial process. They also have extra-curricular activities like Business Week, bazaars, seminars and field trips.

The results imply that the curriculum of the DLSU BSE program is indeed a contributory factor to the observed higher PEC levels of BSE students as compared with the BS ABM students. The sophomore year, the period when there were more highly significant differences in mean scores between the two groups provides a “window of opportunity.” Introducing major core entrepreneurship courses during this period could result in greater incremental gains in PEC development and enhancement.


Based on the above results, it is recommended that DAME-CEM’s core entrepreneurship courses (starting out in the sophomore year) be designed and sequenced in such a way that students experience the whole entrepreneurial process - from personal entrepreneurial development, opportunity identification, business conceptualization, business plan preparation to business plan implementation. Lectures and laboratory work in the entrepreneurship courses should be substantiated with other development activities like experiential exercises (such as those related to negotiation and on risk taking), serendipity walks, tours, internships, mentoring relationships, networking opportunities, workshops, seminars, business plan competitions and business incubation.

As it is in persuasion and networking where the BS ABM students across year levels are consistently rated weak vis-a-vís the BSE students, DAME-CEM needs to prioritize the enhancement of networking skills and also to make available networking opportunities among its students, especially the would-be Agribusiness Entrepreneurship track students under DAME-CEM’s proposed BS in ABME program.

Despite the results, it might not be totally accurate to attribute the DLSU-STC students’ display of higher levels of PECs to their curriculum. For one thing, the BSE students were older. Age is said to be positively and strongly correlated with work experience, fostering the development of entrepreneurial skills and attitudes. According to Reynolds et al. (2002) as cited by Bohla et al. (2006), people aged 25 to 44 are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial activities. They claim that older people are more likely to perceive an opportunity and act upon this opportunity by starting a business—that is to say, engage more in opportunity-based entrepreneurship rather than necessity-based entrepreneurship.

In addition, majority of the BSE students are first-born. As pointed out by Diaz et al. (1997), first-born children are more likely to become entrepreneurs than the youngest or middle children. There were also more BSE students who reported that their families were engaged in a business. In a research on factors related to entrepreneurial decisions among micro-enterprise owners and non-entrepreneurs (Huang et al. 2013), it was found that having an entrepreneur parent is a significant predictor of entrepreneurial engagement.

The findings that the BSE seniors’ PEC mean scores significantly differ only in terms of two PECs (in contrast to the trend in the case of sophomores and juniors) vis-a-vís the BS ABM seniors may be linked to the explanation offered by Cox et al. (2002), as cited by Pfeifer et al. (2013) that exposure to courses with more entrepreneurial content make students more aware of risks and complexities that they used to be unaware of. This increased awareness may result in higher risk aversion and self-confidence.


In future researches, researchers may conduct studies that use panel data in which they can monitor the impact of the entrepreneurship program on the PEC scores of the same batch of students from their freshman to senior year (in one school or several schools at the same time). This is deemed to be a much better way to determine whether or not the curriculum contributes to the development and/or enhancement of the PEC levels of the students. In addition, since the R-squared values of the regressions were relatively low for several competencies, further studies may be done to identify the other relevant determinants of PEC scores.

References

Bhola, R., I. Verheul, R. Thurik and I. Grilo. 2006. Explaining engagement levels of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. Erasmus University Rotterdam: Centre for Advanced and Small Business Economics.

Bird, B. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency.” In J. A. Katz and R. H. Brockhaus, Sr., eds. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth. Connecticut: JAI Press, Volume 2, pp. 51-72.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Capuno, N.B. 2014. An Analysis of Entrepreneurial Skills and Competencies of BSABM Students and MM Graduate Students in the University of the Philippines Los Baños. Unpublished Special Problem Report, Department of Agribusiness Management and Entrepreneurship, College of Economics and Management, UPLB.

Charney, A. and G.D. Libecap. 2000. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education: An Evaluation of the Berger Entrepreneurship Program at the University of Arizona, 1985-1999. Final report prepared for the Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership. Available at: <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1262343> (Accessed on 24 May 2015).

Diaz, P.H., M.R. Co, Z.S. Macaspac and T. T. Vinuya. 1997. Personal En-trepreneurial Development Course. Los Baños, Laguna, University of the Phil-ippines Open University.

Gatchalian, M. L. B. 2010. “An In-depth Analysis of the Entrepreneurship Education in the Philippines: An Initiative Towards the Development of a Framework for a Professional Teaching Competency Program for Entrepreneurship Educators.” The International Journal of Research and Review. Volume 5, 51-73.

Gibcus, P., J.de Kok, J. Snijders, L. Smit and B. van der Linden. 2012. “Effects and Impact of Entrepreneurship Programmes in Higher Education”. Report prepared for the European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry.

Huang, M.A.C., J.V. Camacho, Jr., D.P.T. Depositario and A, L. Bello. 2013. “Factors Related to Entrepreneurial Decisions among Micro-Enterprise Owners and Non-Entrepreneurs in Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.” Paper presented at the Fifth International Conference on Agribusiness Economics and Management, Davao City Philippines, 27-28 November.


Izquierdo, E. and D. Deschoolmeester. 2008. What Entrepreneurial Competencies should be emphasized in Entrepreneurship and Innovation Education at the Undergraduate Level? Working Paper. Available at: http://www1.kmu.unisg.ch/rencontres/Renc2008/Topics_2008/C/Rencontres_2008_Deschoolmester_Izquierdo_f.pdf (Accessed 24 May 2015).

Lepoutre, J., W. Van Den Berghe, O. Tilleuil and H. Crijns. 2010. A New Approach to Testing the Effects of Entrepreneurship Education among Secondary School Pupils. Vlerick Leuven Gent Working Paper Series 2010/01. Vlerick Leuven Gent Management School. Available at: <https://public.vlerick.com/Publications/32770ac2-6aa9-e011-8a89-005056a635ed.pdf> (Accessed on 24 May 2015).

Marques, L. A. and C. Albuquerque. 2012. “Entrepreneurship Education and the Development of Young People Life Competencies and Skills.” ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspectives. Vol. 1, No. 2: 55-68.

Pfeifer S., N. Šarlija, and M. Z. Sušac. 2013. “Student Perception of Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy in Interaction with Educational Program.” Erenet Profile. Vol. 8, No. 2: 3-14.

Schmitt-Rodermund, E. 2004. “Pathways to successful entrepreneurship: Parenting, Personality, Early Entrepreneurial Competence, and Interests.” Journal of Vocational Behavior. Vol. 65, No. 3: 498–518.

Skriabikova, O. T. Dohmen and B. Kriechel. 2013. “The Impact of Risk Attitudes and Family Background on the Propensity to Become Self-Employed.” Paper presented at the 25th European Association of Labour Economists (EALE). Turin, 19-21 September.

Velasco, A. L. 2013. “Entrepreneurship Education in the Philippines.” DLSU Business and Economics Review. Vol. 22, No. 2: 1-14.

Von Graevenitz, G., D. Harhoff and R. Weber. 2010. “The Effects of Entrepreneurship Education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. Vol. 76, 90–112.

Lessons for Designing an Entrepreneurship Curriculum

Documents

Transcript of Lessons for Designing an Entrepreneurship Curriculum