Keywords

Entrepreneurial Pedagogy, Self-efficacy, Entrepreneurial orientation

Introduction

Entrepreneurship plays a critical role in accelerating economic development and job creation, making it an essential area of focus in higher education. As the entrepreneurial landscape continues to evolve, the pedagogical approaches employed in entrepreneurship education are becoming increasingly critical. Entrepreneurial pedagogy refers to the teaching methods, strategies, and curricula employed in entrepreneurship education. It encompasses the various approaches used to impart knowledge, develop skills, and foster an entrepreneurial mindset among students. These pedagogical approaches can include experiential learning, business simulations, case studies, mentorship programs, and entrepreneurial projects, among others. The effectiveness of these pedagogical methods in cultivating entrepreneurial skills and fostering self-efficacy is a topic of great interest and importance particularly in emerging economies.

However, In Nigeria’s context choosing and promoting educators who are not able to engage the students in the necessary experiential activities have inhibited the expected favorable outcomes (Obi & Okekeokosisi, 2018). The common traditional pedagogy has come under increased criticism for failing to be relevant to the students’ needs. The theory and teacher-based approach which is rampant in the Nigerian institutions could limit the student’s ability and self believe to effectively complete an entrepreneurial task or activities due to their inability to connect the theory thought with the reality faced. Lackeus et al., (2015), the traditional pedagogy has remained the predominant approach in practice since more than a century rather than the entrepreneurial pedagogy. Philip (2018) observed that educators continue to have difficulty bridging the gap between theory and practice in higher education. To express and share learning designs is one potential way to solve this issue and advance practice.

Self-efficacy, on the other hand, plays a crucial role in the entrepreneurial process. It influences individuals' perceptions of their ability to identify opportunities, develop innovative solutions, take risks, and persist in the face of challenges. High self-efficacy has been associated with greater entrepreneurial intentions, venture creation, and business success. Therefore, understanding the factors that contribute to the development of self-efficacy among undergraduates is crucial for promoting entrepreneurial intentions and actions (Blimpo & Pugatch, 2021; Igwe et al., 2022).

Furthermore, entrepreneurial orientation refers to an individual's inclination and readiness to engage in entrepreneurial activities. It encompasses the willingness to take risks, the proactiveness in seeking opportunities, and the inclination to innovate. This study aims to assess the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in the relationship between entrepreneurial pedagogy and self-efficacy, recognizing the potential influence of entrepreneurial orientation on the development of self-efficacy among Nigerian undergraduates. By exploring these interrelationships, this study seeks to provide insights into the effectiveness of entrepreneurial pedagogy in fostering self-efficacy among Nigerian undergraduates. Additionally, it aims to shed light on the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation in this relationship, offering a comprehensive understanding of the factors that influence entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors in Nigeria. Based on the aforementioned, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H01: Agripreneurial pedagogy has no significant impact on students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy

H02: Entrepreneurial orientation (innovativeness, proactiveness and risk-taking propensity) does not mediate the relationship between agripreneurship pedagogy and agripreneurship self-efficacy of undergraduates in Nigeria.

Literature Review

The study of instructional strategies and how they impact students is known as pedagogy. The use of pedagogy helps students gain a full comprehension of a subject and apply what they have learned in real-world situations outside of the classroom. The ability to link the teaching to relevant research in the field of interest is another aspect of pedagogical skills. Therefore, EP refers to the study of teaching methodologies and styles used for entrepreneurship education (Moses & Mosunmola, 2014). Since more than a century, traditional pedagogy has remained the most common method used in practice. Much discussion about entrepreneurial education compares the "traditional" and “entrepreneurial" mode of teaching (Lackeus, 2015). The aim of entrepreneurial pedagogy is to implement tools, expertise, strategies and pedagogical approaches that can develop entrepreneurial self-efficacy among students. Because entrepreneurship is reflective action Mariotti & Rabuzzi, (2009) no amount of book-based learning would be sufficient for students to progress in the field. However, teachers must be aware of the learners' characteristics when implementing the curriculum, including their demography, area of interest, and domain (Obi & Okekeokosisi, 2018).

Entrepreneurial pedagogy encompasses different approaches; the problem-based, project-based, practice firm, simulations and games, field trips to local entrepreneurial ventures, and student run businesses all aimed at empowering, reflective, cooperative and experiential activities for the learners. The teacher’s role in the implementation of an entrepreneurial pedagogy changes from that of disseminator of knowledge to that of an organizer, planner, motivator, counselor or coach (Paulson, 2013). According to Zhou & Xu (2012), an appropriate instructional approach should be used to enhance entrepreneurship education. Mehlhorn et al., (2015) asserts that the majority of pedagogical teams in developed nations are aware of the necessity for entrepreneurship education as well as the distinction between entrepreneurship and agribusiness or agri-management. Project-based learning is utilized to encourage entrepreneurship, however for the programs to be effective, changes must be made. Use of real and practical initiatives should be employed, and agricultural and business schools should collaborate more (Marchese et al., 2012). However, for entrepreneurial education to be successful, it is crucial to concentrate on how it is taught within the framework of a particular field. (Carey and Matlay, 2011).

Research supports that when education and training systems incorporate creative and entrepreneurial skills into teaching methodologies, the mindsets and skills more closely tied to the “art” of entrepreneurship (i.e. creativity and innovation) are transmittable (Egerová et al., 2016). Entrepreneurial pedagogy, according to Lackeus (2015), focuses on issues, opportunities, authenticity, artifact creation, iterative experimentation, real-world interactions, value creation to external stakeholders, team work, innovation, risk taking and more. While these approaches may be similar to some other pedagogical approaches, the entrepreneurial approach stands out amidst other approaches; problem-based learning, project based, service learning because it is all encompassing. It is holistic, multidisciplinary, adopts learning as a social interaction such as storytelling, using an iterative process that is value bond, and students are actively involved, committed and emotionally attached and they can practice the experiences gained through the creation of new values. The teaching of entrepreneurial education uses a variety of methodologies and models, which has led to a variety of pedagogical difficulties. According to Almeida (2017) Institutional pressure to provide pedagogies that produce succinct, accurate, and comparable measurements so that we can evaluate the outcome is common. These criteria have led to a variety of pedagogical issues, including choosing the best entrepreneurial curriculum, teachers, locations, and results to utilize in entrepreneurship education.

No lecture in a textbook can compare to the impact of using real money and the participation of business executives, while when younger or less experienced students learn by observing and imitating individuals whose tactics and talents are higher, some of the most beneficial learning may occur informally and tacitly. Youth entrepreneurship education should therefore broaden the pedagogical toolset to include not only text but also a liberal use of visuals, and especially text and visuals interwoven, in order to suit various learning styles (Olokundun et al., 2017). Case study is another entrepreneurship learning strategy that should be used in Nigerian Universities. Also, practical and learner – driven teaching approach should be used and this includes brainstorming, role plays, varied activities, mentoring as well as study tours and exchange (Ma'atoofi, & Tajeddini, 2010). Ely et al., (2014), study on the improving instructional strategy concluded that the multimedia-based interventions enables students to identify, exploit business opportunities, acquire and also deploy the skills necessary for turning opportunities into viable ventures.

Mariotti & Rabuzzi (2009) argue that entrepreneurship education must constantly pioneer the use of digital learning methodologies and approaches in their discussion of the use of digital resources. the use of digital models like the Virtual Enterprise, provided by a partnership led by the City University of New York, the M.I.T. "Games-to-Teach" Project, supported by Microsoft, and many more options. In order to motivate students to continually pursue their entrepreneurial ambitions, it is crucial to provide them with real-world examples. Students should be obliged to read and write about some of the greatest entrepreneurs of the past and present. School and world of work collaboration is another important entrepreneurship education instructional strategy. With this learning strategy, learners are given the opportunity to have a practical experience of what happens in the real world of work. (Hughes et al., 2011). Consequently, learners are exposed to the entrepreneurship-in- practice through the use of life case studies and testimonies of life practitioners as well as actively working with entrepreneurs through the immersion method. Each student is assigned to an entrepreneur for about Three (3) months (depending on institutional arrangement) at the end of which the student submits a report to his/her supervisor (Donbesuur et al., 2020).

Amjad et al. (2020) proposes some operational considerations for an entrepreneurial pedagogical sequence; approach must be empowering such that students can take responsibility of their learning, EP should be experiential and actively promote practical orientations by engaging students in concrete experiences, should be reflective of what students have learned (metacognition) by promoting creativity and innovations and should be collaborative such that social skills is strengthened. Correspondingly, Kozlinska et al., (2020). submit that pedagogy should be focused on problem solving and practical applications, as well, include the concepts of individual responsibility and ownerships. In addition, direct links between teachers and entrepreneurs as well as schools and organizations should be encouraged to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

Theoretical Framework

Self-Efficacy

Albert Bandura's concept of self-efficacy (1986). This concept is described as "people's perceptions of their capacity to achieve specified levels of performance that exert control over circumstances that have an impact on their lives" (Bandura, 1986). This concept is frequently compared to perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned behavior and perceived feasibility in the entrepreneurial event model, especially in entrepreneurship intention research. A sizable body of research demonstrates that self-efficacy influences the successful self-control of a variety of entrepreneurial behaviors, such as developing a new product and launching a business, as a motivational perception driving behavior. It is believed that self-efficacy, in particular, has an impact on the tasks and activities that people decide to take on.

Importantly, we use self-efficacy beliefs to guide our decision of how much effort and persistence to put forth toward goal attainment when established goals (or standards) become endangered. As a result, self-efficacy is a crucial psychological concept to consider when analyzing the self-regulation of entrepreneurial and enterprising behavior and performance because innovations like new product designs, or agribusiness start-up demand constant work and perseverance. A few studies suggest that entrepreneurial intention is largely dependent on entrepreneurial self-efficacy (Bernstein & Carayannis, 2012; Bullough et al., 2013).

According to Bandura's self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986) in Tirtayasa et al. (2021) mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion, and physiological/affective states are the four main sources of information used to create self-efficacy beliefs. Importantly, depending on how people interpret and process the information, these sources may have a good or negative impact on self-efficacy. In order to provide "the most authentic evidence of whether one can muster whatever it takes to achieve," mastery experiences are regarded as the most significant source of self-efficacy. As opposed to unsuccessful task performance, successful task performance often boosts self-efficacy. Vicarious experiences involve watching others (i.e., models) perform a task, imagining oneself perform a task (i.e., through mental imagery), and interpreting the processes involved and outcomes (success/failure) in relation to one’s own experiences. Vicarious experiences are thought to enhance self-efficacy through successful performances, in other words, if someone views a model (or oneself through imagery) successfully completing a task then his/her self-efficacy for that task also increases. However, in terms of normative performance standards, vicarious experiences also function through social comparison. Self-efficacy rises when people outperform others, but it declines when they are outperformed.

Verbal persuasion affects efficacy beliefs by using input from other people. Positive reinforcement, such as "excellent work," and competence-related criticism, such as "you did fantastic," boost self-efficacy, whereas negative assessments of performance lower self-efficacy. Affective and physiological states are the final source(s) of self-efficacy. When performing physical tasks, affective and physiological states are especially crucial for affecting self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). Depending on how it is evaluated, physiological information can have a significant impact on self-efficacy. Although self-efficacy was not originally theorized as a psychological construct influencing self-regulated behaviour, recent research has attempted to examine its causal role.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy

The concept of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy developed by De Noble et al., (2007), including developing new product and market opportunities; building an innovative environment; initiating investor relationships; defining core purpose; coping with unexpected challenges; developing critical human resources. The first dimension, developing new product and market opportunities, involves a person’s belief to be able to create new products and to find opportunity, in order to have solid foundation to launch a venture. The second dimension, building an innovative environment, involves a person’s belief to be able to encourage others or his/her team to try a new idea or to take innovative action. The third dimension, initiating investor relationships, involves a person’s belief to be able to find sources of funding for their venture. The fourth dimension, defining core purpose, involves a person’s belief to be able to be clear with his/her vision and to maintain the vision, and clarify it to his/her team and investors. The fifth dimension, coping with unexpected challenges, involves a person’s belief to be able to tolerate and deal with ambiguity and uncertainty in the start-up entrepreneur. The sixth dimension, developing critical human resources, involves a person’s belief to be able to recruit and retain important and talented individuals to be the members of the venture.

Methodology

The research employed a quantitative approach utilizing a survey method to collect data. A total of 311 respondents were randomly selected from the four Agric-based Universities. Of the 397 individuals invited to participate, 311 completed the questionnaire, a response rate of 78%. The sample was drawn from a population of 58,011 undergraduate students enrolled in various programs at four universities. The sample size was determined using the Taro–Yamane formula. Stratified sampling was employed to ensure proportional representation of the questionnaire responses from each university: Makurdi (121), Abeokuta (123), Umudike (127), and Omu-aran (26). Random techniques were used for randomization. To administer the questionnaire, a digital platform in the form of Google Forms was used. The respondents were contacted via email and WhatsApp. The measurement of variables involved assessing respondents’ entrepreneurship self-efficacy as the dependent variable. The independent variables include the use of entrepreneurship pedagogy, which is mediated by entrepreneurship orientation. Entrepreneurship pedagogy was measured using five Likert items, while entrepreneurship orientation was measured using 11 Likert items, comprising three questions on proactiveness, four items on risk-taking, and four items on innovative capacity. Additionally, five items were used to measure self-efficacy. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data. It consisted of two sections: the first captured the respondents' demographic variables (bio data), while the second addressed the core subject matter related to the research problem. The questionnaire adopted a five-point Likert scale, allowing respondents to indicate their agreement or disagreement, ranging from "Strongly Agreed" to "Strongly Disagreed." Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used for data analysis. SEM was used to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between the independent variable (agripreneurship pedagogy) and dependent variable (self-efficacy). SEM was used to examine the mediating effect of entrepreneurship orientation on this relationship. This approach allowed for a comprehensive examination of the interplay between the variables and provided insights into the magnitude of their impact.

Results

The result of the descriptive statistics show that the mean and standard deviations were 4.39 (0.737), 4.23 (0.712), 3.66 (0.947), 3.96 (0.816) and 3.83 (0.964) for problem based, Simulations, Book based, Experiential and Practice firm pedagogies respectively. 4.08 (0.487) and 4.05 (0.597) for entrepreneurial orientation and self-efficacy respectively. The result indicates that all the means were above 3, the mid-point and thus indicate that all the respondents answered in the affirmative. The highest variability in perception occurred in practice firm while the least was for entrepreneurship orientation as indicated by the standard deviation of 0.964 and 0.487 respectively.

The result of the (Table 1) SEM model (direct effects) reveals that the coefficient of the predictor were 0.1159, 0.0668, -0.0028, 0.1332, and 0.1580 for problem based, Simulations, Book based, Experiential and Practice firm pedagogies respectively. Given that the research model is given by:

Table 1 Direct Effects
Path	Coef.	Std. Err.	z	P>|z|	[95% Conf. Interval]
EO <- PB	.1159064	.0330068	3.51	0.000	.0512141	.1805986
EO <- Sim	.0667538	.0365022	1.83	0.067	-.0047893	.1382968
EO <-   BB	-.0028062	.0240839	-0.12	0.907	-.0500097	.0443973
EO <- EL	.1331848	.0318521	4.18	0.000	. 0707558	. 1956138
EO<-  PF	.1580128	.0280273	5.64	0.000	.1030803	. 2129452

The hypothesized relationship between Agripreneurship Pedagogy and Entrepreneurial orientation is given by:

Equation (i) indicates that a unit change in problem based approach will cause a 11.59% change, a unit change in Simulation will cause a 06.68% variation, a unit change in Book based approach will cause a 0.28% change, a unit change in experiential learning approach will lead to 13.32% change and a unit change in practice firm approach will lead to a 15.80% change on the entrepreneurial orientation of the students.

The result also indicates that the computed Z and associated asymptomatic probabilities were -3.51 (p < 0.000, 1.83 (p < 0.067), -0.12 (p< 0.907), 4.18 (p<0.000), and 5.64 (p<0.000) for problem based, Simulations, Book based, Experiential and Practice firm pedagogies respectively. This indicates that all the explanatory variables (problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies) excluding book based are positively related to entrepreneurial orientation. However, while the positive relationship between problem based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies were statistically significant, the result for Simulations and Book based approach were not statistically significant at all; thus, problem based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies are perceived to be significant predictors of entrepreneurial orientation while simulations and book-based approaches were not. Consequently, we can conclude that, at 99% confidence level, problem based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies are significant predictors of EO.

The result of the structural equation model (Direct effects) of agripreneurship pedagogy predictors (problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies) on student entrepreneurial self-efficacy with entrepreneurial orientation as the mediating variable shows that the coefficient of the entrepreneurial orientation, problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies were 0.7656, 0.0878, -0.0687, -0.0329, 0.0860, and 0.0667 respectively. Thus, the model of Agripreneurship self-efficacy is:

The calculated Z and corresponding p values for the model were: 13.54 (p<0.000), 2.62 (p<0.009), -1.88 (p<0.061), -1.37 (p< 0.171), 2.64 (p<0.008), 2.27 (p<0.023) for EO, entrepreneurial orientation, problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies respectively (Figure 1) The implication is that the mediator (entrepreneurial orientation), and problem based, experiential learning and practice firm are the only statistically significant predictors of student attitude and skills.

Equation (ii) indicates that a unit change in entrepreneurial orientation will stimulate 76.56% variation in entrepreneurial self-efficacy, a unit change in problem-based approach will cause a 08.78% change, A unit change in simulation approach will cause a -06.87% variation on the self-efficacy of the students. Also, a unit change in book-based approach will cause a 03.29% change in the self-efficacy of the undergraduates, a unit change in experiential learning will lead to a 08.60% change and a unit change in practice firm will lead to a 06.67% change in self-efficacy.

The result of the structural equation model (indirect effects) of agripreneurship pedagogy indices (problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies) on students self efficacy with entrepreneurial orientation as the mediating variable shows that the coefficient of problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies were 0.0887 , 0.0511, -0.0021, 0.1019, and 0.1209 respectively. Thus, the specific model for Agripreneurship self-efficacy is:

AgpSE= 0.0887PB + 0.0511Sim + -0.0021BB + 0.1019EL + 0.1209 PF + …….. (ii)

The calculated Z and corresponding p values for the model were 3.40 (p<0.001), 1.81 (p<0.070) -0.12 (p<0.907), 4.00 (p<0.000) 5.20 (p<0.000), and for problem based, simulations, book based, experiential and practice firm pedagogies respectively. The implication is that all the explanatory variables are positively related to attitude and skills except book-based approach. But while the positive relationship between three agripreneurial pedagogy variables (problem-based, experiential and practice firm approaches) and agripreneurial self-efficacy were statistically significant, the relationship between two variable (Simulations and book-based approaches) and agripreneurial self-efficacy were not statistically significant (Table 2).

Table 2 Direct Effects
Path	Coef.	Std. Err.	z	P>|z|	[95% Conf. Interval]		Hypothesis
AGP_SE  <-  EO	.7655955	.0565467	13.54	0.000	.654766	.8764251	Reject Ho
AGP_SE <- PB	.0877955	.033561	2.62	0.009	.0220171	. 153574	Reject Ho
AGP_SE  <-Sim	-.0686793	.0365957	-1.88	0.061	-.1404056	.0030469	Accept Ho
AGP_SE  <- BB	-.0328517	. 0240173	-1.37	0.171	-.0799247	.0142213	Accept Ho
AGP_SE <-  EL	.0860343	. 032644	2.64	0.008	.0220533	.1500153	Reject Ho
AGP_SE <- PF	. 0667066	.0293426	2.27	0.023	.0091961	.1242171	Reject Ho

The equation level goodness of fit test shows the fitted variance is 0.3550, the predicted variance is 0.2043 and the residual is 0.1507 for entrepreneurial Self-efficacy the corresponding values of entrepreneurial orientation are 0.2363, 0.0847, 0.1516. The overall value was 0.4087 meaning that 40% of the perceived variation in Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is due to the variation in the explanatory variables (Table 3).

Table 3 Indirect Effects
Path	Coef.	Std. Err.	z	P>|z|	[95% Conf. Interval]		Hypothesis
AGP_SE <-EO <- PB	.0887374	.026106	3.40	0.001	.0375705	.1399043	Reject Ho
AGP_SE<- EO <- Sim	.0511064	.0281997	1.81	0.070	-.0041641	.1063768	Accept Ho
AGP_SE <-EO <- BB	-.0021484	.0184392	-0.12	0.907	-.0382886	. 0339917	Accept Ho
AGP_SE <-EO <- EL	.1019657	.0255223	4.00	0.000	.0519429	. 1519885	Reject Ho
AGP_SE <-EO <- PF	. 1209739	.0232435	5.20	0.000	.0754174	.1665304	Reject Ho

We tested a SEM that hypothesized that Agripreneurial pedagogy influences entrepreneurial self-efficacy through entrepreneurial orientation. The parameter estimates indicated that Self-efficacy is an important factor for entrepreneurial success, as it influences motivation, persistence, and performance. The result of the direct effect is closely related to the studies of (Irshid et al., 2023).

Conclusion

In this study, we examined the relationship between Agripreneurial pedagogy, entrepreneurial orientation, and entrepreneurial self-efficacy among students. The results obtained from Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analysis supported our hypothesis that different pedagogical approaches significantly influence students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Specifically, problem-based, experiential, and practice firm approaches were found to have a positive impact on students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating these pedagogical strategies in entrepreneurship education to enhance students' belief in their ability to succeed as entrepreneurs.

Furthermore, our study revealed that entrepreneurial orientation partially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial pedagogy and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This suggests that fostering an entrepreneurial orientation within educational institutions can enhance the effectiveness of pedagogical approaches in promoting self-efficacy among students.

Entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a crucial factor for entrepreneurial success as it influences motivation, persistence, and performance. The findings of this study align with previous research that has shown the significant role of self-efficacy in predicting entrepreneurial actions.

By improving students' self-efficacy, entrepreneurship education can effectively equip them with the necessary mindset, skills, and behaviors for entrepreneurial endeavors. It is essential to include cutting-edge and interactive teaching methods within entrepreneurial pedagogy to engage students and facilitate meaningful learning experiences. However, it is important to recognize that the success of entrepreneurship education initiatives also relies on the teachers who serve as change-agents and sources of inspiration. Therefore, it is crucial to extend the discussions and initiatives in entrepreneurship education to reach and empower teachers, as they play a significant role in delivering effective pedagogy and fostering an entrepreneurial mindset among students.

The study highlights the significance of Agripreneurial pedagogy, entrepreneurial orientation, and self-efficacy in entrepreneurship education. By incorporating effective pedagogical strategies and promoting an entrepreneurial orientation, educators can nurture students' self-belief and empower them for entrepreneurial success.

Implication for Practice

Importance of pedagogical approaches: The study highlights the significance of specific pedagogical approaches, such as problem-based, experiential, and firm practice approaches, in enhancing students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Educators can incorporate these approaches into entrepreneurship education programs to promote self-efficacy and enhance students’ EI.

Role of entrepreneurial orientation: The findings indicate that entrepreneurial orientation plays a mediating role between entrepreneurial pedagogy and self-efficacy. Educators and policymakers should encourage and foster an entrepreneurial orientation within educational institutions or organizations to create an environment that nurtures students' belief in their entrepreneurial abilities.

Teaching methods: The study suggests that delivering entrepreneurship lectures using cutting-edge and interactive teaching methods can positively impact students' entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions. Managers and educators should explore innovative teaching techniques such as simulations, case studies, and real-world experiential learning to engage students and enhance their self-efficacy beliefs.

Faculty development: This study emphasizes the importance of equipping lecturers and faculty members with the knowledge and skills necessary to deliver entrepreneurship education effectively. Providing professional development opportunities and resources to faculty members can improve their ability to employ entrepreneurial pedagogy and create a supportive learning environment for students.

Policy implications: This study’s findings can inform policy decisions related to entrepreneurship education. Policymakers can consider incorporating effective pedagogical approaches and promoting an entrepreneurial orientation within educational institutions to foster a culture of entrepreneurship and enhance student self-efficacy and intentions.

References

Almeida, F.L. (2017). Experience with entrepreneurship learning using serious games. Kıbrıslı Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(2), 69-80.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Amjad, T., Rani, S.H.B.A., & Sa'atar, S.B. (2020). Entrepreneurship development and pedagogical gaps in entrepreneurial marketing education. The International Journal of Management Education, 18(2), 100379.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bernstein, A.T., & Carayannis, E.G. (2012). Exploring the value proposition of the undergraduate entrepreneurship major and elective based on student self-efficacy and outcome expectations. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 3, 265-279.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Blimpo, M.P., & Pugatch, T. (2021). Entrepreneurship education and teacher training in Rwanda. Journal of Development Economics, 149, 102583.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Bullough, A., & Renko, M. (2013). Entrepreneurial resilience during challenging times. Business Horizons, 56(3), 343-350.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

DeNoble, A., Ehrlich, S., & Singh, G. (2007). Toward the development of a family business self-efficacy scale: A resource-based perspective. Family Business Review, 20(2), 127-140.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Donbesuur, F., Boso, N., & Hultman, M. (2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation on new venture performance: Contingency roles of entrepreneurial actions. Journal of Business Research, 118, 150-161.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Ely, E., Kennedy, M. J., Pullen, P. C., Williams, M. C., & Hirsch, S. E. (2014). Improving instruction of future teachers: A multimedia approach that supports implementation of evidence-based vocabulary practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 35-43.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Hughes, M., Morgan, R. E., Ireland, R. D., & Hughes, P. (2011). Network behaviours, social capital, and organisational learning in high-growth entrepreneurial firms. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 12(3), 257-272.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Igwe, P.A., Madichie, N.O., Chukwuemeka, O., Rahman, M., Ochinanwata, N., & Uzuegbunam, I. (2022). Pedagogical Approaches to Responsible Entrepreneurship Education. Sustainability, 14(15), 9440.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Irshid, M.M.B., Khasawneh, A.A., & Al-Barakat, A.A. (2023). The effect of conceptual understanding principles-based training program on enhancement of pedagogical knowledge of mathematics teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(6), em2277.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Kozlinska, I., Rebmann, A., & Mets, T. (2023). Entrepreneurial competencies and employment status of business graduates: the role of experiential entrepreneurship pedagogy. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 35(5), 724-761.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. Background paper.

Google Scholar

Lackéus, M., Lundqvist, M., & Middleton, K.W. (2015). Opening up the black box of entrepreneurial education. In 3E Conference (pp. 23-24).

Google Scholar

Ma'atoofi, A. R., & Tajeddini, K. (2010). The effect of entrepreneurship orientation on learning orientation and innovation: A study of small-sized business firms in Iran. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 1(3), 254.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Mehlhorn, J. E., Bonney, L., Fraser, N., & Miles, M. P. (2015). Benchmarking entrepreneurship education in US, Australian, and New Zealand university agriculture programs. Journal of developmental entrepreneurship, 20(03), 1550017.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Moses, C., & Mosunmola, A. (2014). ENTREPRENEURSHIP CURRICULUM AND PEDAGOGICAL CHALLENGES IN CAPTIVATING STUDENTS'INTEREST TOWARDS ENTREPRENEURSHIP EDUCATION. In EDULEARN14 Proceedings (pp. 7466-7475). IATED.

Google Scholar

Obi, M. N., & Okekeokosisi, J. O. (2018). Extent of implementation of national entrepreneurship curriculum in tertiary institutions as perceived by educators. American Journal of Education and Learning, 3(2), 108-115.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Olokundun, M., Olaleke, O., Peter, F., Ibidunni, A. S., & Amaihian, A. B. (2017). Examining the link between university support systems, knowledge sharing and innovation: A focus on Nigerian university students. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 20.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

Philip, R. L. (2018). Finding creative processes in learning design patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(2).

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Tirtayasa, S., Khair, H., & Yusri, M. (2021). Influence of education of entrepreneurship, self efficacy, locus of control and entrepreneurs characters of enterprises (the study case is all the students of private university in Medan). Indonesian Journal of Education, Social Sciences and Research (IJESSR), 2(1), 53-64.

Google Scholar, Cross Ref

Received: 01-Aug-2023, Manuscript No. ASMJ-23-13836; Editor assigned: 03-Aug-2023, PreQC No. ASMJ-23-13836(PQ); Reviewed: 17-Aug-2023, QC No. ASMJ-23-13836; Revised: 21-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. ASMJ-23-13836(R); Published: 28-Aug-2023