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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0040-0912.htm

Entrepreneurship education and Self-efficacy

and learning
entrepreneurial intentions of orientation

university students in Vietnam:

the mediating roles of self-efficacy
and learning orientation Received 31 May 2020
Revised 23 August 2020
27 August 2020
Giang Hoang Accepted 17 September 2020
Faculty of Business Administration, Ton Duc Thang University,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Thuy Thu Thi Le and Anh Kim Thi Tran
Foreign Trade University, Hanoi, Vietnam, and
Tuan Du
KPMG Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to explore the mediating roles of self-efficacy and learning orientation in the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions of university students in
Vietnam.
Design/methodology/approach – The data were collected from an online survey of 1,021 university
students in Vietnam. The authors conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypotheses.
Findings – The results of hierarchical regression analysis reveal that entrepreneurship education positively
affects entrepreneurial intentions, and this relationship is mediated by both learning orientation and
self-efficacy.
Research limitations/implications – This study confirms the importance of entrepreneurship education in
encouraging university students’ entrepreneurial intentions.
Practical implications – This study offers practical implications for universities and policy makers.
Social implications – This study is one of the first to empirically examine the concept of entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions in an Asia-Pacific context.
Originality/value – This study emphasises the significance of entrepreneurship education and its effects on
university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore, the findings confirm that self-efficacy and
learning orientation play an important part in explaining how entrepreneurship education relates to
entrepreneurial intentions.
Keywords Learning orientation, Vietnam, Self-efficacy, Entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurial
intentions
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In recent decades, entrepreneurship has been attracting more attention from scholars and
public policy makers, as it is considered as an important driver of economic development
(Nowi
nski et al., 2019). Entrepreneurship education has, therefore, emerged as a policy tool to
stimulate entrepreneurial activities and encourage entrepreneurial intentions. However, there
is no conclusive evidence regarding the contribution of entrepreneurship education to
entrepreneurial intentions since scholars have found different research results on this issue.
Although most of the previous research found a positive relationship between
Education þ Training
The authors sincerely thank the anonymous reviewer for the helpful and valuable comments on an © Emerald Publishing Limited
0040-0912
earlier version of this article. DOI 10.1108/ET-05-2020-0142
ET entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions (Nowi
nski et al., 2019;
Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015; Wu and Wu, 2008), some authors found contradictory
results (D
ıaz-Casero et al., 2012; Oosterbeek et al., 2010). Recent evidence suggested that
entrepreneurship education may also have indirect effects on entrepreneurial intentions (De
Clercq et al., 2013; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015; T€ urk et al., 2020). Regarding the positive
effects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions, however, it remains
unclear how this relationship is mediated by self-efficacy and learning orientation. This issue
warrants further research on the mechanism through which entrepreneurship education
contributes to encouraging entrepreneurial intentions, particularly the way it interacts with
students’ self-efficacy and learning orientation. Our study aims to bridge this gap by
determining the direct effects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intentions
and explaining how this relationship is mediated by self-efficacy and learning orientation. In
this way, our findings are expected to contribute to the scholarly debate on the link between
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions.
Wu and Wu (2008) argued that the topic explored in this study has been well researched in
the western context but is still under-researched in the Asia-Pacific literature. To test the
hypotheses, we use data collected from Vietnamese university students. Since its renovation
(Doimoi) in 1986, Vietnam, an emerging economy in Southeast Asia, has transformed from a
command economy into a market-oriented economy (Nguyen et al., 2016). In recent years,
entrepreneurship in Vietnam has been growing rapidly and is considered as a key enabler of
economic growth in the country. Despite numerous challenges, Vietnam has managed to
evolve from a de-entrepreneurship to pro-entrepreneurship policy stance (Nguyen et al., 2015).
This has paved the way for a more favourable environment for entrepreneurship
development in the country. It was not until 1986 that Vietnam began its essential reforms
in agrarian, price and foreign trade (Van Arkadie and Mallon, 2004). From this point onwards,
the reform agenda has continuously expanded to institutional improvement, business
development and the balance between public and private sectors (Nguyen et al., 2015).
According to the Global Innovation Index (Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO, 2019),
Vietnam has been an innovation achiever for the past decade and is ranked as the top
economy in the lower middle-income group. These have been credited for the emergence of
entrepreneurship with the growing foundation of new firms. Realising the importance of
fostering entrepreneurship in the country, a number of key factors have been proposed, one of
which is entrepreneurship education. The Vietnamese government has implemented a
number of actions to enhance entrepreneurship activities, particularly those of university
graduates (Nguyen et al., 2019). For instance, in 2017, the government has introduced a
national program called “Supporting Student Entrepreneurship 2017–2020 with a Vision
Towards 2025” to provide university students with knowledge and skills on
entrepreneurship (OECD/ERIA, 2018). To propose effective suggestions for policy makers,
we need to understand how entrepreneurship education contributes to entrepreneurial
intentions.
This article is structured as follows. First, we review the existing literature on
entrepreneurship education, self-efficacy, learning orientation and entrepreneurial intentions
to formulate the hypotheses. We then discuss the research method that was used in this
study. Subsequently, we report the results from the hierarchical regression analysis.
Following this, we discuss the key findings and outline theoretical and practical implications.
Finally, the limitations of this study and directions for future research are presented.

2. Literature review
2.1 Entrepreneurial intentions
Entrepreneurship plays an essential role in promoting the socio-economic development of a
n
an and Chen, 2009; Zhang et al., 2014). The
country, especially in the age of globalisation (Li~
concept has various definitions because of the increasing interest shown by economists, Self-efficacy
sociologists and psychologists, ranging from simply a process of creative destruction to a and learning
broader level, namely, a work attitude that places emphasis on self-reliance, initiative and the
degree of innovation and risk (Bruyat and Julien, 2001; Van Gelderen et al., 2008). Overall,
orientation
entrepreneurship can be regarded as a process or a series of actions to start a business that
takes place over time (Li~ n
an and Chen, 2009), and it can last for a long time (Lee and Wong,
2004). Bird (1988) viewed entrepreneurial intentions as the inaugural step in the above-
mentioned process, marking the formation of the concept. In the past three decades,
entrepreneurial intentions have been developed and become the focus of attention of many
other scholars.
The definition of entrepreneurial intentions is strengthened by the premise that intention
is ultimately the best predictor of behaviour through the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen,
1991, 2002), in which the concept refers to an individual’s attitude towards the behaviour,
perceived social norms and perceived behavioural control (Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015).
Shane and Venkataraman (2000) provided further details about the two objectives of
entrepreneurial intentions, namely, the development of a new organisation and the addition of
value in existing organisations. To achieve these two objectives, entrepreneurial intentions
play a role as a “cognitive representation of the actions” performed by individuals (Fini et al.,
2009, p. 5). This is supported by Moriano et al. (2012) and Do and Dadvari (2017), who
described the concept as the conscious state of mind illustrating one’s personal experience,
perception and interest regarding planned entrepreneurial behaviours. In fact, there remains
a gap between entrepreneurial intentions and reality, given that the former always leads to a
start-up activity and the measured variance of action towards a start-up activity is lower than
30% (Armitage and Conner, 2001; Van Gelderen et al., 2015). However, the vast majority of the
literature still views entrepreneurial intentions as the most accurate antecedent of
entrepreneurship (Cera et al., 2020).
Entrepreneurial intentions can be classified into three types (Lans et al., 2010). First, from
the classical perspective, entrepreneurial intentions are defined as the intent to develop a new
organisation, the determination to own a business and an individual’s affirmed conviction for
new venture creation and a clear plan to execute this action at a specific time in the future
(Thompson, 2009). The second type is alternative entrepreneurial intentions, which refers to
the continuation of operation of an inherited or acquired firm (Lans et al., 2010). It is suggested
that those who found a business are remarkably different from those who are promoted or
recruited, while entrepreneurs who either inherit or buy an organisation are in between,
implying a diversity of people in terms of primary drives and attitudes (Cooper and
Dunkelberg, 1986). The third type of entrepreneurial intentions is defined as intrapreneurial
intention by Lans et al. (2010), indicating the intention to become an intrapreneur or corporate
entrepreneur. According to Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2011), entrepreneurial behaviour is
likely to happen within the context of a corporate career. Corporate entrepreneurship, in turn,
entails individuals to follow and drive the firm towards entrepreneurial behaviours. As such,
each type of intention outlined above will be linked to different learning objectives and
professional needs among entrepreneurs.

2.2 Entrepreneurship education

There is a wide variety of studies in the extant literature that identify factors that influence
the creation of entrepreneurial intentions. Bird (1988) argued that there are two types of
determinants: individual factors and contextual factors. The former consists of demographic
factors, personal characteristics, psychological features, personal skills and prior knowledge
and personal network and social ties, while the latter includes environmental support,
environmental effects and organisational factors (Fini et al., 2009). These introductory ideas
have been expanded, and scholars continue to acknowledge more specifically influential
ET factors, namely, traits and personalities (Ciavarella et al., 2004), gender (Marlow and
McAdam, 2012), prior experience of entrepreneurship (Krueger, 1993) and attitudes towards
self-employment (Movahedi et al., 2013). Among such factors, in the context of an academic
environment, entrepreneurship education is gaining increasing attention from scholars
(Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2014). Entrepreneurs were once regarded as those with
certain genes inherited from their previous generations; however, scholars nowadays
acknowledge that with education and training, anyone can become an entrepreneur
(Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2016; Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Walter and Block, 2016). While education
in general implies the impartation and inheritance of intellectual knowledge and skills,
entrepreneurship education refers more specifically to the use of lectures and the curriculum,
among others, to provide learners with knowledge, skills and even passion in
entrepreneurship (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Learners with solid entrepreneurial intentions
will leverage any opportunity to obtain the necessary knowledge and skills. Consequently,
their entrepreneurship actions will include the intention to undertake available
entrepreneurship education (Li~ n
an and Chen, 2009). Adam and Fayolle (2015) described
entrepreneurial education as educational programmes linked to techniques, understanding
and ethics needed for students to become entrepreneurs. In the context of this paper, the
authors follow the comprehensive definition of Alberti et al. (2004), which is that
entrepreneurship education is the dissemination of the knowledge, skills and attitudes
towards entrepreneurial competence that learners need to turn entrepreneurial ideas into
start-up intentions and entrepreneurial behaviours.
Entrepreneurship education can be classified into three categories: education about
entrepreneurship, education for entrepreneurship and education in entrepreneurship
(Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015). Education about entrepreneurship concentrates on the
theoretical approach of building and operating an enterprise, which is linked to the traditional
teaching methodology that prioritises theory as a means of education to help students
understand the results of practice and actions (Nowi
nski et al., 2019). Education for
entrepreneurship focuses on the practical approach to establish and run a business (Watson
and McGowan, 2019). This is associated with the activity-based teaching methodology, in
which practice and actions are used to provide information, motivation and passion in
aspiring entrepreneurs’ behaviours, opportunity recognition and risk management in
entrepreneurial surroundings (Harmeling and Sarasvathy, 2013). Education in
entrepreneurship is associated with training for experienced entrepreneurs in certain
areas, e.g. marketing strategy and product management, with a view to promoting business
growth. This category is not limited to the start-up context but is open to learners who expect
to have access to an enterprise approach regardless of the employment (Ismail et al., 2018;
Nowi
nski et al., 2019). According to Hien and Cho (2018), Vietnam’s entrepreneurship
education consists of (1) curricular entrepreneurship programmes, (2) extracurricular
entrepreneurship programmes and (3) social education in promoting entrepreneurship
intentions.
While the concept of entrepreneurship education has developed, the details of training
courses designed for students vary. This, in turn, increases the difficulty in determining the
impact of entrepreneurship-related programmes on students as well as whether they share a
common goal (Matlay, 2005; Nowi
nski et al., 2019). In addition, there is variance in the
teaching methods of entrepreneurship education, leading to learners and teachers being in
conflict with each other (Neck and Greene, 2011). This remains a weak link of the concept,
suggesting the need for more applicable studies to clarify its indistinct and ambiguous
feature (Nowi
nski et al., 2019).
Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the value and impact of entrepreneurship
education programmes on entrepreneurial intentions (Stadler and Smith, 2017) at the primary
school level, secondary school level (Huber et al., 2014; S
anchez, 2013) and, especially,
university level (Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Walter and Block, 2016; Zhang et al., 2014), which play Self-efficacy
an important role in one’s career choice. According to Donckels (1991) and Cho (1998), and learning
education is instrumental in boosting entrepreneurial intentions because of the relevant
knowledge and techniques of entrepreneurship that foster one’s motivation for new venture
orientation
creation. In support of this view, Gorman et al. (1997) and Kuratko (2005) concluded that
entrepreneurship can be taught and learnt via education, resulting in successful start-up
attempts afterwards or better organisational performance (Zhang et al., 2014). To be more
specific, students who undertake entrepreneurship education display stronger
entrepreneurial intentions (Wu and Wu, 2008). Other studies suggested a similar positive
correlation among entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial intentions and entrepreneurial
activities (Nowi

nski et al., 2019; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015; Wu and Wu, 2008). However,
the link between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions is generally
under-researched in Asia in general and Vietnam in particular. Therefore, the authors
formulated the first hypothesis on the direct impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurial intentions, which is as follows:
H1. Entrepreneurship education is positively related to Vietnamese university students’
entrepreneurial intentions.

2.3 Self-efficacy
While numerous studies have shown a positive association between entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions (Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Piperopoulos and Dimov,
2015; Wu and Wu, 2008), other studies have shown a contradictory result or indicate that the
relationship is insignificant (D
ıaz-Casero et al., 2012; Oosterbeek et al., 2010). The reason for
this is that entrepreneurship education may interact with other variables in the development
of entrepreneurial intentions (Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2016).
In their social learning theory, Bandura and Walters (1977) defined a link between career
choice and self-perceptions of individual skills in task accomplishments that they referred to
as self-efficacy. To be more specific, self-efficacy, as an inspirational source, pertains to one’s
conscious trust and belief in one’s ability to achieve, which impacts one’s cognitive degree
(Kuo et al., 2004), i.e. the concept is associated with self-assessment, which influences efforts
and fortitude against challenges and towards decisions linked to actions to be executed.
Consequently, a remarkable feature of self-efficacy is its preference for actions (Naktiyok
et al., 2010). Individuals achieve better performance on work in which they have a higher level
of self-efficacy; conversely, they have a tendency to neglect work in which they have low self-
efficacy due to failure anxiety (Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015). Over time, this concept has
become increasingly prominent, particularly in entrepreneurship-related studies (Chen et al.,
1998; Markman and Baron, 2003), in which self-efficacy is viewed as a prerequisite (Krueger
and Brazeal, 1994). More importantly, in two of the major theories of entrepreneurial
intentions, the theory of planned behaviour developed by Ajzen (1991) and the
entrepreneurial event model developed by Krueger et al. (2000), self-efficacy is
instrumental in the formation of entrepreneurial intentions (Nowi
nski et al., 2019). Self-
efficacy refers to a series of conscious thought processes on which entrepreneurs rely to
identify their capacities and apply to obtain more favourable outcomes (Wang et al., 2016).
Such entrepreneurs are better prepared and more committed (Pinquart et al., 2003).
Furthermore, self-efficacy can help entrepreneurs to recognise new opportunities and act
proactively accordingly because of their determination to address problems, passion in
dealing with threats (Forbes, 2005), management capability and risk-taking attitude
(Vesalainen and Pihkala, 1999; Wang et al., 2016). Scholars have proved that there is a positive
link between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions in certain countries, such as the
ET USA, South Korea (Jung et al., 2001), Poland (Kurczewska and Bialek, 2014) and Visegrad
countries (Nowi
nski et al., 2019), and across different academic domains (Lans et al., 2010).
Likewise, in the social cognitive theory (Bandura and Walters, 1977), self-efficacy stems
from four information sources: (1) mastery personal experiences (via performance
achievement), (2) vicarious experiences (observation of experiences of others), (3) verbal
persuasion and (4) physiological and emotional states. All four sources, or at least some of
them, can, in turn, result from entrepreneurship education (Malebana and Swanepoel, 2014;
Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Zhao et al., 2005). Specifically, throughout entrepreneurship courses and
programmes, aspiring entrepreneurs are able to participate in hands-on projects, which will
boost their self-efficacy through tangible outcomes and performance accomplishments, and
even their own failures (Bandura, 2009; Krueger et al., 2000). Regarding vicarious experiences,
learners are able to discuss successful case studies of well-established entrepreneurs in the
market and thus boost their confidence to establish a start-up venture (Malebana and
Swanepoel, 2014). Through the learning curriculum and group interactions, students can be
convinced that a career in entrepreneurship is attainable and within their capacity (Laviolette
et al., 2012). Finally, entrepreneurship educators can assist learners by providing
physiological and emotional support, from which students can address their emotions and
develop emotional states in a positive way (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994).
As the relationship between entrepreneurial education and self-efficacy and the
relationship between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions have been investigated in
numerous studies, in this paper, we concentrate on the intervening effect of self-efficacy on
the two other variables. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions has been explored in several
studies (Zhao et al., 2005). According to Krueger and Brazeal (1994), entrepreneurship
education improves learners’ knowledge, boosts their confidence level and solidifies their self-
efficacy. Accordingly, this increases their self-perception of the possibility of undertaking
entrepreneurship attempts and strengthens their intention. Furthermore, Zhao et al. (2005)
argued that self-efficacy lays a theoretical foundation for the link between education and
entrepreneurial intentions. Based on the theoretical and empirical evidence, we propose the
following hypothesis:
H2. Self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions of Vietnamese university students.

2.4 Learning orientation

In addition to self-efficacy, it is necessary to take into account the role of learning orientation
in relation to entrepreneurship education and the development of entrepreneurial intentions,
especially from a practical perspective, as it is possible that general learning orientation will
change over time depending on situational conditions and contexts (Ames and Archer, 1988;
Dragoni et al., 2009). Individuals may lean towards learning if they are faced with challenging
obstacles or motivated to review their existing set of knowledge. Consequently, learning
orientation pertains to individual characteristics despite its display of trait qualities (Van
Hooft and Noordzij, 2009). For that reason, the concept can attract entrepreneurship
educators, as it offers an opportunity to mediate and assist in the career choice, especially for
the young (De Clercq et al., 2013; Franke and L€ uthje, 2004).
By definition, individual learning refers to a dialectical process consisting of the
acquisition of new knowledge and the integration of such knowledge into one’s current sets of
understanding (Baum et al., 2011), i.e. learning is the procedure of transforming new
experiences into a mix of existing and new knowledge (De Clercq et al., 2013; Joy and Kolb,
2009). This capacity to transform knowledge is linked to one’s learning orientation or, in other
words, the inclination to obtain new knowledge relentlessly (Dweck and Leggett, 1988).
Individuals with stronger learning orientation are more likely to participate in active Self-efficacy
experimentation, where they obtain new knowledge via exposure to real-life circumstances and learning
(Baum et al., 2011). Consequently, learning orientation will boost individual ability in terms of
problem-solving and risk management, as the continuous updates of new knowledge will
orientation
bring about innovative solutions (De Clercq et al., 2013). Therefore, these people will be better
prepared to take advantage of the current knowledge, supported by new insights and
diagnostic information (Dweck and Leggett, 1988).
Given that a career in entrepreneurship involves a high degree of uncertainty
(Schoonhoven and Romanelli, 2009), learning orientation will activate the conversion of
entrepreneurship ideas into an intention and the pursuit of a career as an entrepreneur (De
Clercq et al., 2013). Likewise, one of the most challenging obstacles in relation to a career in
entrepreneurship is the possibility of its failure that requires entrepreneurs to minimise
(Honig, 2004). A high level of learning orientation will enable entrepreneurs to leverage their
relevant past and current experiences to be able to deal with difficulties better than those with
a lower level of learning orientation (T€urk et al., 2020). Moreover, Dweck and Leggett (1988)
highlighted that learning orientation makes people feel more open to both opportunities and
difficulties to enhance their competencies, allowing them to master their tasks more
effortlessly. Given those implications in the entrepreneurship setting, it is observed that
learning orientation can play an important part in predicting entrepreneurial intentions.
Furthermore, entrepreneurship education can equip learners with knowledge, skills and
attitudes that can contribute to the pool of entrepreneurs, which they can use in their future
entrepreneurial behaviours and entrepreneurship career. Such new knowledge and skills
obtained from the learning curriculum and courses, together with the existing knowledge of
learners, can increase the influence of learning orientation. Therefore, learning orientation
can act as a mediator in the relationship between entrepreneurial intentions and
entrepreneurship education.
Despite the role played by learning orientation, few scholars have studied the concept in
more detail, especially in the context of entrepreneurship. The studies conducted by Zhao
et al. (2005) took learning orientation into consideration when investigating people’s
willingness to broaden their new experiences, while Baum et al. (2011) discussed the impact of
learning orientation on the practical intelligence of entrepreneurs. Having reviewed the
extant literature, the authors believe that learning orientation can play an important role in
mediating the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
intentions. We therefore hypothesise that:
H3. Learning orientation positively mediates the relationship between entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions of Vietnamese students.
Figure 1 summarises the conceptual model of our study. While previous research mostly
focused on the mediating role of self-efficacy, our model extends previous models by
considering the intervening roles of both self-efficacy and learning orientation in the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In the next
section, we discuss the methods that have been used in this study.

3. Methods
3.1 Sample and data collection
Following the research design of previous studies that investigated entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions (Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Wu and Wu, 2008), our
hypotheses were tested with quantitative data collected from a sample of university students.
According to De Clercq et al. (2013), university students are most suitable for entrepreneurial
intention research as they are homogeneous regarding prior experience and have less actual
ET
Self-efficacy

Entrepreneurship Entrepreneurial
Education Intentions

Figure 1. Learning
Conceptual model Orientation

entrepreneurial experience than other adult samples. In addition, university students’ desired
career is usually uppermost in their mind.
Data were collected during the first quarter of 2020 through an online self-administered
survey to assess students’ entrepreneurship education, characteristics and career aspirations.
We recruited students who are currently enrolled in different academic courses (i.e. business,
economics, accounting, construction engineering and information technology) at three major
Vietnamese universities. First, we approached the lecturers who are teaching undergraduate
courses at these universities to seek their assistance in recruiting students and distributing
the questionnaires. With the students’ and lecturers’ permission, an email containing the
informed consent form and a survey link were sent to 1,620 students via their university email
system. All respondents were informed that their participation was entirely voluntary, and
that an interest in entrepreneurship was not compulsory to participate in this research.
Furthermore, we emphasised that there was no right or wrong answer, and all the
information provided by our respondents would be kept confidential and anonymous
(Podsakoff et al., 2003; Spector, 2006). By the due date, 1,042 questionnaires have been
completed, giving a response rate of 64.32%. However, 21 questionnaires were excluded due
to incompleteness, resulting in 1,021 useable questionnaires in the final sample (63.02%).

3.2 Measures
To measure the main concepts of interest, we adapted existing scales because they were
found to be valid and reliable in previous studies. A five-point Likert scale was used in all
items of the questionnaire, ranging from “1 5 strongly disagree” to “5 5 strongly agree”.
n
an and Chen (2009)
To assess entrepreneurial intentions, the six-item scale created by Li~
was adopted. These items include “I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur” and “My
professional goal is to become an entrepreneur” (α 5 0.92).
We adopted the four-item scale developed by Walter and Block (2016) (α 5 0.81) to assess
entrepreneurial education. Sample items are “My school education helped me to gain a better
understanding of the role of entrepreneurs in society” and “My school education made me
interested in becoming an entrepreneur”.
The measure for self-efficacy was adopted from Wang et al. (2016) study (α 5 0.91). These
items include, “I can achieve most goals that I set for myself” and “When working on difficult
tasks, I am certain that I will complete them”.
 To measure learning orientation, we used a six-item scale created by VandeWalle (1997) Self-efficacy
(α 5 0.89). Sample items are “I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and and learning
knowledge” and “I often read materials (articles, Internet, books) to improve my abilities”.
Following previous research (Nowi
nski et al., 2019; Urban and Galawe, 2019), several key
orientation
variables deemed to be related to entrepreneurial behaviour were controlled, including
gender, study major, parent entrepreneurial background and year of study. By including
these variables, we controlled for the potential impacts of students’ demographic differences,
which may influence their entrepreneurial intentions (Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015).

3.3 Analytic approach

SPSS and AMOS 25 were employed to test the hypotheses at the individual level. First, we
verified the fit of the scales and identified the relation between observed variables and the
latent factors by applying confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). To evaluate the model fitness,
we employed a number of fit indices, including the comparative fit index (CFI), goodness-of-fit
index (GFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) and root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA). According to Hair et al. (2010), a CFI value above 0.90, a GFI value above 0.90, a TLI
value above 0.90 and an RMSEA value below 0.05 indicate a good degree of fit. We then
conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypotheses by adding the control
variables and the main variables in different steps. To test the mediation effects of self-
efficacy and learning orientation, we followed the method of mediation analysis suggested by
Baron and Kenny (1986) that is widely used in behavioural research.

4. Results
4.1 Common method bias
Common method bias is a common problem in a behavioural study when the same
respondents assess both predictor and criterion variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To address
the common method bias issue, we conducted Harman’s one-factor test (Mittal and Dhar,
2015). According to Podsakoff and Organ (1986), Harman’s one-factor analysis is a useful
method to identify possible common method bias. Following the suggestion of Mittal and
Dhar (2015), we entered all variables as one principal component factor in factor analysis. It is
recommended that the outcome of un-rotated factor analysis has to be lower than 50%
(Podsakoff et al., 2003). The result of our Harman’s one-factor analysis was 33.89%.
Therefore, common method bias is not a problem in this study.

4.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations between the main factors and control
variables. A reliability test was conducted to evaluate the internal consistency of the scales
used in this study. The results show that the Cronbach’s alpha of all four factors is greater
than 0.7, which is satisfactory (Table 1) (Nunnally, 1978).
The results of the analysis of the measurement model using CFA revealed a good model fit
(χ 2/df 5 4.277, p < 0.001, CFI 5 0.933, GFI 5 0.915, TLI 5 0.925 and RMSEA 5 0.05). In
addition, we tested four alternative models against this measurement model to evaluate the
distinction of the constructs. These alternative models were formulated based on the
theoretical similarities of the constructs (Hoang et al., 2019). In the first three-factor model,
self-efficacy and learning orientation were combined into one factor. In the second three-
factor model, entrepreneurship education and self-efficacy were combined into one factor. In
the third three-factor model, entrepreneurship education and learning orientation were
combined into one factor. In the two-factor model, entrepreneurship education was combined
with self-efficacy and learning orientation to form a single factor. In the one-factor model, all
 ET

Table 1.

and correlations
Descriptive statistics
Parent
Standard Year of entrepreneurial Entrepreneurial Entrepreneurship Self- Learning
Mean deviation Gender study Major background intentions education efficacy orientation

Gender 1.27 0.457 1

Year of study 2.12 0.939 0.008 1
Major 1.21 0.484 0.403** 0.053 1
Parent 0.20 0.398 0.074* 0.000 0.015 1
entrepreneurial
background
Entrepreneurial 3.2086 0.90466 0.220** 0.029 0.125** 0.129** (0.92)
intentions
Entrepreneurship 3.6104 0.73288 0.015 0.001 0.039 0.025 0.411** (0.79)
education
** ** **
Self-efficacy 3.5493 0.55764 0.046 0.081 0.051 0.091 0.392 0.358** (0.85)
Learning 3.7999 0.61623 0.104** 0.096** 0.025 0.104** 0.384** 0.316** 0.614** (0.85)
orientation
Note(s): N 5 1,021. Reliability coefficients for the scales are shown in parentheses along the diagonal. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 (two-tailed)
variables were combined into one factor. Table 2 shows that the hypothesised model fitted the Self-efficacy
data better than other simplified models. Therefore, it was concluded that the constructs of and learning
entrepreneurship education, self-efficacy, learning orientation and entrepreneurial intentions
were distinct. The CFA results are presented in Table 2.
orientation

4.3 Hypothesis testing

A hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses by adding the main
variables and control variables in the regression model step by step. The results of the
hierarchal regression analysis are shown in Table 3.
H1 proposed that entrepreneurship education is positively associated with
entrepreneurial intentions. As shown in Table 3, entrepreneurship education has a positive
effect on entrepreneurial intentions (β 5 0.40, p < 0.01, Model 6). Therefore, H1 is confirmed.
To test H2 and H3, we employed the method of mediation analysis suggested by Baron
and Kenny (1986). According to this method, a mediation effect is established if these three
conditions are satisfied: “[f]irst, the independent variable must affect the mediator in the first
equation; second, the independent variable must be shown to affect the dependent variable in
the second equation; and third, the mediator must affect the dependent variable in the third
equation” (Baron and Kenny, 1986, p. 1,177).
In terms of H2, as shown in Table 3, entrepreneurship education has a significant
positive effect on self-efficacy (β 5 0.35, p < 0.01, Model 2). Therefore, Baron and
Kenny’s Condition 1 was satisfied. In addition, the result of Model 7 provides support
for Condition 2 because self-efficacy is positively associated with entrepreneurial
intentions (β 5 0.26, p < 0.01, Model 7). Condition 3 was also met because, as shown in
Model 7, the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial
intentions became significant when self-efficacy was added to the model (β 5 0.31,
p < 0.01). Therefore, H2 is confirmed.
In terms of H3, Table 3 shows that entrepreneurship education has a positive effect on
learning orientation (β 5 0.31, p < 0.01, Model 4). Therefore, Baron and Kenny’s Condition
1 was satisfied. The result of Model 8 provides support for Condition 2 as learning
orientation has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intentions (β 5 0.16, p < 0.01, Model 8).
Moreover, Condition 3 was satisfied by the result shown in Model 8, where the association
between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions became significant
when learning orientation was added to the model (β 5 0.29, p < 0.01). Therefore, H3 is
confirmed.

CFA models χ 2/df CFI GFI TLI RMSEA

Four-factor model: baseline model 4.277 0.933 0.915 0.925 0.050

Three-factor model
Combine self-efficacy and learning orientation 6.774 0.881 0.852 0.867 0.075
Combine entrepreneurship education and self-efficacy 7.778 0.860 0.839 0.844 0.082
Combine entrepreneurship education and learning orientation 8.255 0.850 0.829 0.833 0.084
Two-factor model
Combine entrepreneurship education, self-efficacy and learning 11.495 0.780 0.777 0.759 0.101
orientation
One-factor model Table 2.
Combine all variables 21.399 0.572 0.546 0.531 0.141 CFA results
 ET

Table 3.

regression results
Hierarchical multiple
Self-efficacy Learning orientation Entrepreneurial intentions
Dependent variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8

Control variables
Gender 0.03 0.03 0.11** 0.11** 0.19** 0.20** 0.19** 0.17**
Year of study 0.08* 0.08** 0.10** 0.10** 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00
Major 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.03
Parental entrepreneurial background 0.09** 0.08** 0.10** 0.09** 0.11** 0.10** 0.08** 0.08**
Independent variable
Entrepreneurship education 0.35** 0.31** 0.40** 0.31** 0.29**
Mediators
Self-efficacy 0.26** 0.17**
Learning orientation 0.16**
F-value 4.493** 33.835** 7.864** 29.886** 17.241** 59.570** 67.720** 62.310**
R2 0.017 0.143 0.030 0.128 0.064 0.227 0.286 0.301
Adjusted R2 0.014 0.014 0.026 0.124 0.060 0.223 0.282 0.296
ΔR2 0.017 0.125 0.030 0.098 0.064 0.163 0.059 0.015
Note(s): *p-value < 0.05; **p-value < 0.01
5. Discussion Self-efficacy
The aim of this study was to examine the association between entrepreneurship education and learning
and entrepreneurial intentions and the mediating effects of self-efficacy and learning
orientation on this relationship. The findings show that entrepreneurship education has a
orientation
direct effect on Vietnamese university students’ entrepreneurial intentions. In addition, self-
efficacy and learning orientation play significant mediating roles in the association between
entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. While self-efficacy has been
identified as an antecedent of entrepreneurial intentions in a number of studies (Nowi
nski
et al., 2019; Piperopoulos and Dimov, 2015; Zhao et al., 2005), the literature on learning
orientation is limited. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to find a
positive mediating effect of learning orientation on the association between entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial intentions in a Vietnamese context. In the following sections,
the theoretical and practical contributions of this study will be discussed.

5.1 Theoretical contributions

This study confirms the importance of entrepreneurship education in encouraging university
students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Our findings are consistent with the observation of
Donckels (1991) and Cho (1998), who emphasised that education can be used as an instrument
for motivating entrepreneurial intentions by providing relevant knowledge and techniques of
entrepreneurship that encourage one’s motivation for new venture creation. In support of the
theoretical views of Gorman et al. (1997) and Kuratko (2005), the findings of our study confirm
that entrepreneurship education can result in students’ entrepreneurial intentions, which
may lead to successful start-up attempts after graduation (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003;
Zhang et al., 2014).
Our research makes a strong point by investigating the mediation effects of self-efficacy
and learning orientation on the association between entrepreneurship education and
entrepreneurial intentions in a Vietnamese context. The study contributes to expanding two
of the major theories of entrepreneurial intentions, the theory of planned behaviour developed
by Ajzen (1991) and the entrepreneurial event model developed by Krueger et al. (2000). In line
with these theories, our empirical findings confirm that self-efficacy is an important factor in
the formation of entrepreneurial intentions, particularly in the context of an Asia-Pacific
country. Our study indicates that entrepreneurship-oriented courses might exert
fundamental effects on entrepreneurship by encouraging students to choose an
entrepreneurial career and stimulating students’ intrinsic motivation.
Finally, this study is the first to investigate the role of learning orientation in mediating the
association between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. In their
study, Dweck and Leggett (1988) found that a higher degree of learning orientation is likely to
result in one’s positive attitude towards opportunities and difficulties to enhance one’s
competencies. Given those implications in an entrepreneurship setting, our findings confirm
that learning orientation can play an important part in stimulating entrepreneurial intentions.
This is in line with the findings of Zhao et al. (2005), who identified a link between learning
orientation and willingness to broaden new experiences. Moreover, our study supports the
findings of Baum et al. (2011) regarding the impact of learning orientation on the practical
intelligence of entrepreneurs. We, therefore, suggest that it would be valuable to explore the
effect of learning orientation on the relationship between entrepreneurship education and
entrepreneurial intentions in a wider context.

5.2 Practical contributions

Our study offers practical implications for universities and policy makers. We suggest that
the Vietnamese government could support universities by creating an institutional
ET framework to facilitate university students’ access to entrepreneurship education (Nghia
et al., 2019; Tung et al., 2020). Although a government report showed that the majority of
Vietnamese students have access to higher education, previous research found that a lack of
institutional solutions might limit entrepreneurship education to several fields of study
(Nguyen et al., 2019). Furthermore, we recommend that including entrepreneurship education
at the higher education level would progressively increase the graduates’ intention to choose
an entrepreneurial career. It is also worth noting that universities should consider including
entrepreneurship in their curriculum design and teaching method as instruments to enhance
students’ learning orientation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. We suggest that universities
not only focus on the theoretical approach of building and operating an enterprise, but also
apply the activity-based teaching methodology to stimulate the entrepreneurial behaviours
and opportunity recognition of the students (Phan et al., 2019). In addition, universities can go
beyond entrepreneurship education by offering support to their students in starting a
business either before or after graduation.

6. Conclusions
This study contributes to expanding our understanding of the influences of entrepreneurship
education on the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Our findings show that
entrepreneurship education in the Vietnamese context could directly affect entrepreneurial
intentions. It also has indirect effects on entrepreneurial intentions via self-efficacy and
learning orientation. Our findings highlight the importance of entrepreneurship education
and suggest that the government of Vietnam and the universities should facilitate university
students’ access to entrepreneurship education.
We acknowledge that this study may have some limitations, however. First, it does not
control for study levels, curriculum design and teaching methods. Furthermore, it only
concentrates on three predictors of entrepreneurial intentions, of which only
entrepreneurship education can be managed by public policy. We suggest that future
studies should investigate other predictors of entrepreneurial intentions, e.g. student
competencies, personality and passion, in motivating graduate entrepreneurship. To align
entrepreneurship education with the specific needs of university students in different
countries, future studies could examine the mediating effect of learning orientation on the
relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions in various
contexts. In the fast-changing world, this study only reports the findings from a cross-
sectional approach. We suggest that other scholars could conduct a longitudinal study to test
the proposed theoretical model.

References
Adam, A.F. and Fayolle, A. (2015), “Bridging the entrepreneurial intention–behaviour gap: the role of
commitment and implementation intention”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and
Small Business, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 36-54.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Ajzen (2002), “Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned
behavior 1”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 665-683.
Alberti, F., Sciascia, S. and Poli, A. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: notes on an ongoing debate”,
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Int Ent Conference, University of Napoli Federico II, Italy.
Ames, C. and Archer, J. (1988), “Achievement goals in the classroom: students’ learning strategies and
motivation processes”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 3, p. 260.
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. (2001), “Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic Self-efficacy
review”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 471-499.
and learning
Bandura, A. (2009), “Social cognitive theory goes global”, The Psychologist, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 504-506.
orientation
Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. (1977), Social Learning Theory, Prentice-hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, Vol. 1.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.
Baum, J.R., Bird, B.J. and Singh, S. (2011), “The practical intelligence of entrepreneurs: antecedents and
a link with new venture growth”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 397-425.
Bird, B. (1988), “Implementing entrepreneurial ideas: the case for intention”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 442-453.
Bruyat, C. and Julien, P.A. (2001), “Defining the field of research in entrepreneurship”, Journal of
Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 165-180.
Cera, G., Mlouk, A., Cera, E. and Shumeli, A. (2020), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurial intention. A quasi-experimental research design”, Journal of Competitiveness,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-56.
Chen, C.C., Greene, P.G. and Crick, A. (1998), “Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish
entrepreneurs from managers?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 295-316.
Cho, B. (1998), “Study of the effective entrepreneurship education method and its process”, Business
Education Research, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 27-47.
Ciavarella, M.A., Buchholtz, A.K., Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D. and Stokes, G.S. (2004), “The Big Five
and venture survival: is there a linkage?”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 465-483.
Cooper, A.C. and Dunkelberg, W.C. (1986), “Entrepreneurship and paths to business ownership”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 53-68.
Cornell University, INSEAD and WIPO (2019), The Global Innovation Index 2019: Creating Healthy
Lives–The Future of Medical Innovation, Fontainebleau, and Geneva, Ithaca.
De Clercq, D., Honig, B. and Martin, B. (2013), “The roles of learning orientation and passion for work
in the formation of entrepreneurial intention’”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 31
No. 6, pp. 652-676.
D
ıaz-Casero, J.C., Ferreira, J.J.M., Mogoll
on, R.H. and Raposo, M.L.B. (2012), “Influence of institutional
environment on entrepreneurial intention: a comparative study of two countries university
students”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 55-74.
Do, B.R. and Dadvari, A. (2017), “The influence of the dark triad on the relationship between
entrepreneurial attitude orientation and entrepreneurial intention: a study among students in
Taiwan University”, Asia Pacific Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 185-191.
Donckels, R. (1991), “Education and entrepreneurship experiences from secondary and university
education in Belgium”, Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 35-42.
Dragoni, L., Tesluk, P.E., Russell, J.E. and Oh, I.-S. (2009), “Understanding managerial development:
integrating developmental assignments, learning orientation, and access to developmental
opportunities in predicting managerial competencies”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 52 No. 4, pp. 731-743.
Dweck, C.S. and Leggett, E.L. (1988), “A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 95 No. 2, p. 256.
Entrialgo, M. and Iglesias, V. (2016), “The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the
antecedents of entrepreneurial intention”, The International Entrepreneurship and Management
Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1209-1232.
ET Fini, R., Grimaldi, R. and Sobrero, M. (2009), “Factors fostering academics to start up new ventures: an
assessment of Italian founders’ incentives”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 380-402.
Fitzsimmons, J.R. and Douglas, E.J. (2011), “Interaction between feasibility and desirability in the
formation of entrepreneurial intentions’”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 431-440.
Forbes, D.P. (2005), “Are some entrepreneurs more overconfident than others?”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 623-640.
uthje, C. (2004), “Entrepreneurial intentions of business students–a benchmarking
Franke, N. and L€
study”, International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, Vol. 1 No. 3,
pp. 269-288.
Gorman, G., Hanlon, D. and King, W. (1997), “Some research perspectives on entrepreneurship
education, enterprise education and education for small business management: a ten-year
literature review”, International Small Business Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 56-77.
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Babin, B. and Black, W. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective,
Pearson Upper, Saddle River, NJ, Vol. 7.
Harmeling, S.S. and Sarasvathy, S.D. (2013), “When contingency is a resource: educating
entrepreneurs in the Balkans, the Bronx, and beyond’”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and
Practice, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 713-744.
Hien, D.T.T. and Cho, S.E. (2018), “Relationship between entrepreneurship education and innovative
start-up intentions among university students’”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 1-16.
Hoang, G., Wilson-Evered, E. and Lockstone-Binney, L. (2019), “Leading innovation among tourism
small and medium enterprises”, The Leadership and Organization Development Journal, Vol. 40
No. 5, pp. 647-666.
Honig, B. (2004), “Entrepreneurship education: toward a model of contingency-based business
planning”, The Academy of Management Learning and Education, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-273.
Huber, L.R., Sloof, R. and Van Praag, M. (2014), “The effect of early entrepreneurship education:
evidence from a field experiment”, European Economic Review, Vol. 72, pp. 76-97.
Ismail, A.B., Sawang, S. and Zolin, R. (2018), “Entrepreneurship education pedagogy: teacher-student-
centred paradox”, Education þ Training, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 168-184.
Joy, S. and Kolb, D.A. (2009), “Are there cultural differences in learning style?”, International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 69-85.
Jung, D.I., Ehrlich, S.B., De Noble, A.F. and Baik, K.B. (2001), “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and its
relationship to entrepreneurial action: a comparative study between the US and Korea”,
Management International, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 41.
Krueger, N. (1993), “The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture
feasibility and desirability”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 5-21.
Krueger, N.F. Jr and Brazeal, D.V. (1994), “Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs”,
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 91-104.
Krueger, N.F. Jr, Reilly, M.D. and Carsrud, A.L. (2000), “Competing models of entrepreneurial
intentions’”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 Nos 5-6, pp. 411-432.
Kuo, F.Y., Chu, T.H., Hsu, M.H. and Hsieh, H.S. (2004), “An investigation of effort–accuracy trade-off
and the impact of self-efficacy on Web searching behaviors”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 37
No. 3, pp. 331-342.
Kuratko, D.F. (2005), “The emergence of entrepreneurship education: development, trends, and
challenges”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 577-597.
Kurczewska, A. and Bialek, J. (2014), “Is the interplay between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial
intention gender-dependent”, Argumenta Oeconomica, Vol. 2 No. 33, pp. 23-38.
Lans, T., Gulikers, J. and Batterink, M. (2010), “Moving beyond traditional measures of entrepreneurial Self-efficacy
intentions in a study among life-sciences students in The Netherlands”, Research in Post-
Compulsory Education, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 259-274. and learning
Laviolette, E.M., Lefebvre, M.R. and Brunel, O. (2012), “The impact of story bound entrepreneurial role
orientation
models on self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial
Behavior and Research, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 720-742.
Lee, S.H. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “An exploratory study of techno preneurial intentions: a career
anchor perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 7-28.
n
an, F. and Chen, Y.W. (2009), “Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument
Li~
to measure entrepreneurial intentions”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 593-617.
Malebana, M. and Swanepoel, E. (2014), “The relationship between exposure to entrepreneurship
education and entrepreneurial self-effi cacy”, Southern African Business Review, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Markman, G.D. and Baron, R.A. (2003), “Person–entrepreneurship fit: why some people are more
successful as entrepreneurs than others”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 281-301.
Marlow, S. and McAdam, M. (2012), “Analyzing the influence of gender upon high–technology
venturing within the context of business incubation”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 655-676.
Matlay, H. (2005), “Entrepreneurship education in UK business schools: conceptual, contextual and
policy considerations”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 12 No. 4,
pp. 627-643.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 61-89.
Mittal, S. and Dhar, R.L. (2015), “Transformational leadership and employee creativity: mediating role
of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing”, Management Decision,
Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 894-910.
Moriano, J.A., Gorgievski, M., Laguna, M., Stephan, U. and Zarafshani, K. (2012), “A cross-cultural
approach to understanding entrepreneurial intention’”, Journal of Career Development, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 162-185.
Movahedi, R., Latifi, S. and Sayyar, L.Z. (2013), “The factors affecting agricultural students’ attitude
towards self-employment and entrepreneurship”, The International Journal of Agriculture and
Crop Sciences, Vol. 5 No. 16, pp. 1813-1819.
Naktiyok, A., Karabey, C.N. and Gulluce, A.C. (2010), “Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and
entrepreneurial intention: the Turkish case’”, The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 419-435.
Neck, H.M. and Greene, P.G. (2011), “Entrepreneurship education: known worlds and new frontiers”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 55-70.
Nghia, T.L.H., Hoang, G. and Quyen, V.P. (2019), “At-home international education in Vietnamese
universities: impact on graduates’ employability and career prospects”, Higher Education,
Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 817-834.
Nguyen, Q.A., Sullivan Mort, G. and D’Souza, C. (2015), “Vietnam in transition: SMEs and the
necessitating environment for entrepreneurship development”, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 154-180.
Nguyen, A., Nguyen, T. and Hoang, G. (2016), “Trade facilitation in ASEAN countries: harmonisation
of logistics policies”, Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 120-134.
Nguyen, A., Do, T.H.H., Vu, T.B.T., Dang, K.A. and Nguyen, H.L. (2019), “Factors affecting
entrepreneurial intentions among youths in Vietnam’”, Children and Youth Services Review,
Vol. 99, pp. 186-193.
ET nski, W., Haddoud, M.Y., Lancaric, D., Egerov
a, D. and Czegl
edi, C. (2019), “The impact of
Nowi

entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial
intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries”, Studies in Higher Education,
Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 361-379.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2d ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
OECD/ERIA (2018), SME Policy Index: ASEAN 2018: Boosting Competitiveness and Inclusive Growth,
SME Policy Index, OECD Publishing, Paris/ERIA.
Oosterbeek, H., Van Praag, M. and Ijsselstein, A. (2010), “The impact of entrepreneurship education on
entrepreneurship skills and motivation”, European Economic Review, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 442-454.
Peterman, N.E. and Kennedy, J. (2003), “Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of
entrepreneurship”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-144.
Phan, H.L.T., Tran, L.T. and Blackmore, J. (2019), “Internationalization, student engagement, and
global graduates: a comparative study of Vietnamese and Australian students’ experience”,
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 171-189.
Pinquart, M., Juang, L.P. and Silbereisen, R.K. (2003), “Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work
transition: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 63 No. 3, pp. 329-346.
Piperopoulos, P. and Dimov, D. (2015), “Burst bubbles or build steam? Entrepreneurship education,
entrepreneurial self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 970-985.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
S
anchez, J.C. (2013), “The impact of an entrepreneurship education program on entrepreneurial
competencies and intention”, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 447-465.
Schoonhoven, C.B. and Romanelli, E. (2009), “The next wave in entrepreneurship research”,
Entrepreneurial Strategic Content (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth,
Vol. 11, pp. 225-259.
Shane, S. and Venkataraman, S. (2000), “The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 217-226.
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 221-232.
Stadler, A. and Smith, A.M. (2017), “Entrepreneurship in vocational education: a case study of the
Brazilian context”, Industry and Higher Education, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 81-89.
Thompson, E.R. (2009), “Individual entrepreneurial intent: construct clarification and development of
an internationally reliable metric”, Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 669-694.
urk, S., Zapkau, F.B. and Schwens, C. (2020), “Prior entrepreneurial exposure and the emergence of
T€
entrepreneurial passion: the moderating role of learning orientation”, Journal of Small Business
Management, Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 225-258.
Tung, D.T., Hung, N.T., Phuong, N.T.C., Loan, N.T.T. and Chong, S.C. (2020), “Enterprise development
from students: the case of universities in Vietnam and the Philippines”, International Journal of
Management in Education, Vol. 18 No. 1, p. 100333.
Urban, B. and Galawe, J. (2019), “The mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between
moral judgement, empathy and social opportunity recognition in South Africa”, International
Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 349-372.
Van Arkadie, B. and Mallon, R. (2004), Viet Nam: A Transition Tiger?, ANU E Press, Canberra.
Van Gelderen, M., Brand, M., Van Praag, M., Bodewes, W., Poutsma, E. and Van Gils, A. (2008), Self-efficacy
“Explaining entrepreneurial intentions by means of the theory of planned behaviour”, Career
Development International, Vol. 13 No. 6, pp. 538-559. and learning
Van Gelderen, M., Kautonen, T. and Fink, M. (2015), “From entrepreneurial intentions to actions: self-
orientation
control and action-related doubt, fear, and aversion”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 30
No. 5, pp. 655-673.
Van Hooft, E.A. and Noordzij, G. (2009), “The effects of goal orientation on job search and
reemployment: a field experiment among unemployed job seekers”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 6, p. 1581.
VandeWalle, D. (1997), “Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument”,
Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 995-1015.
Vesalainen, J. and Pihkala, T. (1999), “Entrepreneurial identity, intentions and the effect of the push-
factor”, Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 1-24.
Walter, S.G. and Block, J.H. (2016), “Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional
perspective”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 216-233.
Wang, J.H., Chang, C.C., Yao, S.N. and Liang, C. (2016), “The contribution of self-efficacy to the
relationship between personality traits and entrepreneurial intention”, Higher Education,
Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 209-224.
Watson, K. and McGowan, P. (2019), “Rethinking competition-based entrepreneurship education in
higher education institutions”, Education þ Training, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Wu, S. and Wu, L. (2008), “The impact of higher education on entrepreneurial intentions of university
students in China”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 752-774.
Zhang, Y., Duysters, G. and Cloodt, M. (2014), “The role of entrepreneurship education as a predictor
of university students’ entrepreneurial intention”, The International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 623-641.
Zhao, H., Seibert, S.E. and Hills, G.E. (2005), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of
entrepreneurial intentions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 6, p. 1265.

About the authors

Giang Hoang (PhD, Victoria University, Australia) is a Research Fellow at Ton Duc Thang University,
Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. His research focuses on entrepreneurship, innovation and leadership. His
work has appeared in peer-reviewed journals such as Higher Education, Leadership and Organization
Development Journal and Employee Relations. Giang Hoang is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: [email protected]
Thuy Thu Thi Le (PhD, Foreign Trade University, Vietnam) is an Associate Professor of
Management and Chair of University Council at Foreign Trade University, Vietnam. Her research
interests include strategic management and leadership. Thuy has published her work in a number of
peer-reviewed journals.
Anh Kim Thi Tran (PhD, Foreign Trade University, Vietnam) is an Associate Professor of
Accounting and Dean of Faculty of Accounting and Auditing at Foreign Trade University, Vietnam.
Anh’s main area of research expertise relates to accounting and auditing education. Anh has published
her work in a number of peer-reviewed journals.
Tuan Du (MSc, University College Dublin, Ireland) is currently the Manager of Deal Advisory,
Strategy, KPMG Vietnam. Tuan’s research interests include strategy and investment. He intends to
pursue his PhD in the near future.

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