Cogent Social Sciences

ISSN: 2331-1886 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/oass20

Education and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial

training in secondary education and its impact on
entrepreneurial interest in the United States and
Spain

María Consuelo Digón-Arroba, María-Camino Escolar-Llamazares, Cristina

di Giusto-Valle, Tamara de la Torre-Cruz, Isabel Luis-Rico, Carmen Palmero-
Cámara & Alfredo Jiménez

To cite this article: María Consuelo Digón-Arroba, María-Camino Escolar-Llamazares, Cristina

di Giusto-Valle, Tamara de la Torre-Cruz, Isabel Luis-Rico, Carmen Palmero-Cámara & Alfredo
Jiménez (2025) Education and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial training in secondary
education and its impact on entrepreneurial interest in the United States and Spain, Cogent
Social Sciences, 11:1, 2539548, DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2025.2539548

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2539548

© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 10 Aug 2025.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 92

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=oass20
Cogent Social Sciences
2025, VOL. 11, NO. 1, 2539548
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2539548

Politics & International Relations | Research Article

Education and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurial training
in secondary education and its impact on entrepreneurial interest
in the United States and Spain
María Consuelo Digón-Arrobaa, María-Camino Escolar-Llamazaresb ,
Cristina di Giusto-Vallec, Tamara de la Torre-Cruzc, Isabel Luis-Ricoc,
Carmen Palmero-Cámarac and Alfredo Jiménezd
a
Department of Romance Languages, University of Michigan, Michigan, USA; bDepartamento de Ciencias de la Salud,
Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain; cDepartamento de Ciencias de la Educación, Universidad de Burgos, Burgos, Spain;
d
Department of Management, KEDGE Business School, Talence, France

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The pivotal role of education and entrepreneurial training in fostering economic growth, Received 17 May 2023
recovery and societal advancement is widely recognized. This study examines the Revised 17 July 2025
influence of entrepreneurial training in secondary education on students’ entrepreneurial Accepted 20 July 2025
interest in the United States and Spain, exploring how tailored educational approaches KEYWORDS
can shape future entrepreneurial ecosystems. Specifically, the objective of this study is American; competences;
to show and to analyze the relation that exists between training in financial knowledge education; entrepreneurial
and the didactic methods associated with entrepreneurial interest. An explanatory and interest; Spanish;
transversal type of design is proposed. The entrepreneurial interest of students at students; entrepreneur
Burgos University (Spain), with no formal business education and where actions to SUBJECTS
promote entrepreneurial spirit are limited, is compared with a sample from Washtenaw Educational Psychology;
in the state of Michigan where entrepreneurship education has achieved a notable Education Policy &
degree of maturity. The sample under study amounted to 276 students, between 13 Politics; Educational
and 17 years of age. The results confirmed the positive influence of entrepreneurship Research
education as a factor that improved the entrepreneurial interest of the students from
both Burgos and Michigan. Investigations are needed that follow students who
subsequently become entrepreneurs over time to know which subjects taught at school
were most useful when starting out as an entrepreneur.

1. Introduction
In recent studies, the decisive impact that education and entrepreneurial training have on growth, eco-
nomic recovery and the progress of society through innovation and job creation has been demonstrated
(Doan, 2022; Everett, 2024; Hou et al., 2022; Kirman Bilgin & İnaltekin, 2022; Y. Li et al., 2022; Wiramihardja
et al., 2022). Both the most advanced and the most dependent societies need entrepreneurs to approach
not only an increasingly interrelated and complex job market, but also to find solutions that can address
new social needs undergoing dizzying changes of increasing complexity, more intensely interrelated than
before and rapidly evolving every day (Comesaña-Comesaña et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022; Sousa &
Costa, 2022).
It is thought that entrepreneurial education improves entrepreneurship through three different mech-
anisms (Everett, 2024; Hou et al., 2022; Kirman Bilgin & İnaltekin, 2022; Wiramihardja et al., 2022). In the
first place, through the provision of instrumental skills that are needed for the launch and the growth
of a new firm (Comesaña-Comesaña et al., 2022; Honig, 2004; Smith et al., 2022; Sousa & Costa, 2022).
In second place, through the improvement of the cognitive capability of individuals to understand the
variables involved in the recognition and the evaluation of economic opportunities (DeTienne & Chandler,

CONTACT María-Camino Escolar-Llamazares [email protected] Departamento de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Burgos, 09001
Burgos, Spain
© 2025 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been
published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

2004). And, in third place, through the improvement of attitudes toward entrepreneurship (Doan, 2022;
Farrokhnia et al., 2022; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Qader et al., 2022; Renart Vicens et al., 2022).
The curricula of many countries around Spain promote subjects related to financial and entrepreneur-
ship education. Thus, in Spain, Organic Law 8/2013, of 9 December, for the Improvement of Educational
Quality boosted the development of entrepreneurial attitudes from early educational stages and specif-
ically incorporated Entrepreneurship Education for the first time at secondary school level. A curricular
policy that has been kept alive in Organic Law 3/2020, of December 29, in amendment of Organic Law
2/2006, of May 3, on Education. The current debate is no longer centered on the incorporation of this
type of subject but on its content and repercussions. Over the past 30 years or so, rigorous evaluations
of entrepreneurial education programs have been carried out, such as the one completed by Gibb (1987)
in the United Kingdom and those of Klofsten et al. (2021) in Sweden and Klandt (2004) in German-speaking
countries. Training programs have also been analyzed outside Europe, in the studies of Jones and English
(2004) in Australia, Khan and Almoharby (2007) in Oman and Coduras et al. (2010), J. Li et al. (2003), Hou
et al. (2022) and Y. Li et al. (2022) in China.
Based on the existing literature and the need for comparative studies that explore the connection
between entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial interest—particularly in different cul-
tural and educational contexts—this study aims to analyze which factors (state, sex, age, school owner-
ship, family entrepreneurial background, knowledge of entrepreneurship networks and the presence of
specific methodologies, abilities and knowledge in the curriculum) best predict secondary school stu-
dents’ entrepreneurial interest in Spain and the United States.
Therefore, in this paper we aim to address the following research question:
How do the independence variables as state, sex, age, ownership of centers, family entrepreneurial back-
ground, entrepreneurship networks and the presence in the curriculum of the specific methodologies, abilities
and knowledge influence entrepreneurial interest among young students?

2. Literature review
Entrepreneurship education has gained increasing academic and policy interest over the last decades
due to its perceived role in fostering innovation, economic growth and youth employability. The litera-
ture in this field encompasses a wide range of dimensions, including its historical evolution, pedagogical
approaches, institutional implementation and measurable outcomes on students’ attitudes and inten-
tions. In what follows, this section reviews the main strands of research that inform the present study,
focusing on the evolution and relevance of entrepreneurship education, its relationship with entrepre-
neurial interest, the influence of socio-demographic variables and the role of knowledge, abilities and
methodologies in shaping entrepreneurial outcomes.

2.1. The evolution and relevance of entrepreneurship education

Entrepreneurship education is rooted in innovation-driven economies, where it was first introduced as a
response to the growing need to develop economic resilience, adaptability and self-employment oppor-
tunities. The earliest documented efforts can be traced back to Shigeru Fujii at Kobe University in Japan
in 1938 and to the Myles Mace at Harvard Business School in 1947 (Katz, 2003; Solomon et al., 2002).
Since then, the discipline has evolved from being a niche topic within business schools to becoming a
cross-disciplinary area integrated into many national education strategies.
In most innovation-driven economies, entrepreneurship education is considered a strategic axis
for promoting innovation and sustainable development (Doan, 2022; Qader et al., 2022; Shane &
Venkataraman, 2000; Wei et al., 2024). Various governments have incorporated entrepreneurial education
across different levels of the curriculum. For example, Spain included Entrepreneurship Education for-
mally in secondary education through Organic Law 8/2013 and later reinforced it through Organic Law
3/2020 (Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional, 2024). Similarly, in the United States, certain
states, such as Michigan, have made entrepreneurship education a mandatory part of their secondary
education curricula since 1979.
 Cogent Social Sciences 3

This educational trend reflects a global recognition of the role of entrepreneurship in enhancing youth
employability, supporting innovation ecosystems and addressing complex socio-economic challenges
(Comesaña-Comesaña et al., 2022; Smith et al., 2022). Consequently, academic literature has increasingly
focused on the design, implementation and effectiveness of entrepreneurship education programs in
diverse national and institutional contexts (Gibb, 1987; Khan & Almoharby, 2007; Klofsten et al., 2021).
This contrast highlights important structural differences in the role of entrepreneurship education
across countries. In Spain, entrepreneurship content is often limited to specific elective courses or pilot
programs, whereas in Michigan (USA), it is systematically embedded across subjects and supported by
extracurricular programs. These variations may shape students’ exposure, perceptions and interest in
entrepreneurship, particularly when comparing regions such as Burgos and Washtenaw County.
Such differences suggest the need for a comparative analysis that examines not only policy frame-
works but also the extent to which entrepreneurship education is accessible and effective in different
socio-educational environments (Jiménez et al., 2015).
Accordingly, the first hypothesis addresses the role of the State variable.
Hypothesis 1 (H1). Students in Michigan (Washtenaw) will report higher levels of entrepreneurial interest than
students in Burgos (Spain), due to their earlier and broader exposure to entrepreneurship education in their
region.

2.2. Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial interest

A growing body of research has explored the impact of entrepreneurship education on students’ entre-
preneurial interest, attitudes and intentions. Numerous studies suggest that participation in
entrepreneurship-related subjects correlates positively with increased interest in launching new ventures
or pursuing self-employment (Farrokhnia et al., 2022; Peterman & Kennedy, 2003; Souitaris et al., 2007).
For example, the U.S. Small Business Administration (Submit Consulting, 2009) found that students
exposed to entrepreneurship education were more likely to work in small businesses and pursue
innovation-based careers. Similarly, in Australia and Germany, research has confirmed that entrepreneur-
ship courses shape students’ motivation and their perception of entrepreneurship as a viable professional
path (Abdallah & Alkaabi, 2023; Jones & English, 2004).
Several scholars have also emphasized the psychological and cognitive mechanisms behind this rela-
tionship. DeTienne and Chandler (2004) argue that entrepreneurship education enhances opportunity
recognition skills, while Schultz (1959) and Mincer (1974) highlight the role of education in improving
individuals’ productivity, adaptability and decision-making. These abilities, in turn, support the develop-
ment of entrepreneurial intention.
Despite these positive findings, some studies warn that entrepreneurship education alone may not be
sufficient. According to Renart Vicens et al. (2022), only voluntary entrepreneurship education, rather
than compulsory coursework, showed a significant effect on entrepreneurial interest. This suggests the
need to critically examine not only the presence, but also the content and delivery of entrepreneurship
education across different settings.
Notably, the comparative dimension is relevant here: in Spain, studies such as Renart Vicens et al.
(2022) suggest that the effect of entrepreneurship education on interest is significant only when partic-
ipation is voluntary, whereas in Michigan, the long-standing integration of entrepreneurship into the
curriculum (since 1979) may lead to higher baseline levels of entrepreneurial interest among students.
These contrasting patterns call for an empirical comparison across regions with different educational
traditions and policy contexts.
Ownership of the educational center is another structural factor that shapes access to entrepreneurial
learning. In Spain, private and state-assisted schools are almost twice as likely as public schools to offer
a stand-alone entrepreneurship course (62% vs. 34%), and they report higher average weekly instruc-
tional time devoted to entrepreneurial projects (European Commission, 2019). Similar disparities are
observed in the United States: a statewide survey in Michigan showed that 78% of private high schools
deliver a dedicated entrepreneurship pathway compared with 52% of public high schools (Daswati et al.,
2022; Scott & Hills, 2021).
4 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Qualitative evidence indicates that private institutions tend to have greater curricular flexibility, part-
nerships with local businesses and access to external funding for extracurricular programs (Nafukho &
Falebita, 2020; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2020). These advantages trans-
late into more frequent use of experiential methodologies—business plan competitions, student-run
enterprises and mentorship schemes—which the literature links to stronger entrepreneurial attitudes
(Fayolle & Gailly, 2015).
Given the documented differences in program availability, intensity and pedagogy between public
and private schools in both Spain and the United States, ownership of center is expected to influence
students’ entrepreneurial interest independently of regional context.
Accordingly, the second hypothesis addresses the role of the Ownership of Centers variable.
Hypothesis 2 (H2). Students enrolled in private institutions will report higher entrepreneurial interest than
those in public schools, as private schools may offer more opportunities for entrepreneurship-related learning
and extracurricular activities.

2.3. Influence of socio-demographic factors on entrepreneurial interest

Beyond the effects of formal education, socio-demographic factors play a significant role in shaping
young people’s entrepreneurial interest and intention. The most studied variables are sex, age, family
entrepreneurial background and exposure to entrepreneurial networks.
Sex differences in entrepreneurship have been widely documented. While some studies indicate a
gender gap in entrepreneurial intention favoring male students, others point to more nuanced dynamics.
For instance, Somià et al. (2024) found that although men tend to identify business opportunities
more confidently, women excel in communication, leadership and team-building—competencies equally
essential for entrepreneurship. Such differences highlight the importance of analyzing how sex may inter-
act with educational and contextual variables to influence entrepreneurial outcomes.
These gender dynamics may vary across contexts: in Spain, traditional gender roles and limited female
entrepreneurial role models may contribute to lower entrepreneurial interest among young women,
whereas in the U.S., especially in Michigan, initiatives aimed at promoting gender equity in entrepreneur-
ship education may help reduce such gaps (Michigan Department of Education [Michigan DoE], 2023;
Souitaris et al., 2007).
Age also appears to be a relevant factor. Entrepreneurial interest tends to increase during adoles-
cence, peaking between the ages of 16 and 17, as students begin to seriously consider future career
paths. However, empirical evidence suggests this relationship is not always linear or statistically signifi-
cant (Liu et al., 2024; Schunk, 1995).
Recent cross-national surveys confirm the pattern but reveal regional nuances: the 2023 Global
Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) youth report shows that in Spain entrepreneurial interest rises sharply at
age 16 (33%) and peaks at 17 (38%), then plateaus (Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Spain [GEM Spain],
2023). In the United States, the 2022 Kauffman Youth Entrepreneurship Survey reports a steadier climb from
age 15 (27%) to age 18 (42%), suggesting a more prolonged developmental window (Fairlie, 2022). These
findings imply that the age–interest curve may be steeper but shorter in Spain than in the U.S., possibly
reflecting differences in curricular exposure and extracurricular opportunities available in each context.
Family background, particularly the presence of entrepreneurs in the immediate family, has been asso-
ciated with greater entrepreneurial interest. Students exposed to family members who own or run busi-
nesses tend to have a more realistic and positive perception of entrepreneurship (Luis-Rico et al., 2020;
Pablo-Lerchundi et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2020).
Comparative data underline the magnitude of this effect: GEM Spain (2023) estimates that 18% of
Spanish secondary students have at least one close relative who is an entrepreneur, whereas the figure
rises to 34% in the United States (GEM U.S. Team, 2024). In both countries, but especially in the U.S.,
family entrepreneurial background strongly predicts opportunity recognition and start-up self-efficacy
(Díaz-García & Brush, 2022; Eesley, 2023). These disparities suggest that family social capital may play a
larger quantitative role in Michigan than in Burgos, reinforcing the need to include this variable in
cross-regional models of entrepreneurial interest.
 Cogent Social Sciences 5

Access to entrepreneurship networks is another relevant factor. In Michigan, students often benefit
from a stronger ecosystem of incubators, mentorships and community programs, while in Spain, such
networks are less prevalent and less integrated into the educational experience (Luis-Rico et al., 2020;
Submit Consulting, 2009). This differential access may influence the development of entrepreneurial iden-
tity in each context.
Together, these variables provide a sociocultural lens through which entrepreneurial interest is formed
and nurtured. These are especially relevant in comparative analyses, where different countries or regions
may exhibit distinct patterns in terms of gender roles, family structures, or exposure to entrepreneurship
ecosystems.
In light of the reviewed evidence, we propose the following specific hypotheses relating to the depen-
dent variables of Sex, Age, Family entrepreneurial background and Entrepreneurial networks.
Hypothesis 3 (H3). Male students will report higher levels of entrepreneurial interest than female students,
consistent with documented gender gaps in entrepreneurial intention.

Hypothesis 4 (H4). Older students will report higher levels of entrepreneurial interest, as entrepreneurial aspi-
rations tend to increase during late adolescence.

Hypothesis 5 (H5). Students with a family entrepreneurial background will report higher levels of entrepreneur-
ial interest compared to those without such background, as family exposure to entrepreneurship provides role
models and experiential learning opportunities.

Hypothesis 6 (H6). Students who are aware of entrepreneurship networks will report higher entrepreneurial
interest than those who are not, due to access to resources, mentorship and exposure to entrepreneurial
ecosystems.

2.4. Impact of financial knowledge on entrepreneurial interest

Financial literacy has been identified as a key factor in fostering entrepreneurial motivation and interest,
especially among the youth. A solid understanding of personal finance, budgeting, business planning
and economic systems not only enhances confidence in managing a potential enterprise but also
reduces the perception of risk associated with entrepreneurship (Johnson & Sherraden, 2007; Lusardi
et al., 2010).
Various studies have emphasized the importance of specific entrepreneurial-knowledge domains in
shaping students’ entrepreneurial behavior. Recent meta-analyses show that mastery of business-plan
design and marketing concepts explains up to 12% of the variance in start-up intention among European
adolescents (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015), while familiarity with legal aspects of creating a firm accounts for an
additional 4% (Liñán & Chen, 2022). Information-technology skills and access-to-resources knowledge
have also been linked to higher digital-entrepreneurship intent in U.S. high-school samples (Stewart &
Carpenter, 2023).
In the Spanish context, the incorporation of these knowledge components into the curriculum is rel-
atively recent and uneven. Only 28% of Burgos schools teach Business Plan and Marketing as assessed
subjects, 16% cover Legal Aspects and fewer than 10% include Administration Management (Ministerio de
Educación y Formación Profesional, 2024). In contrast, Michigan’s Career & Technical Education (CTE) stan-
dards mandate instructional units in Business Plan, Marketing, IT for Entrepreneurship and Legal Environment
for all public high-school students. A 2023 audit shows that 85% of Washtenaw schools deliver at least
six of the eight knowledge areas (Michigan DOE, 2023).
Nevertheless, research also points out that the mere presence of financial education is not enough; it
must be relevant, applicable and tailored to students’ interests. McCormick (2009) argues that financial
education should go beyond theoretical content and include interactive and practical components to
genuinely impact students’ entrepreneurial mindset.
Accordingly, the seventh hypothesis focuses on the role of financial Knowledge.
Hypothesis 7 (H7). Students who acquire financial knowledge (i.e., Business Plan, Marketing, Languages,
Information Technology, Planning Organization, Access to Resources, Legal Aspects and Administration
Management) in formal education will be more likely to express interest in entrepreneurship.
6 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

2.5. Entrepreneurial abilities and their role in entrepreneurship education

Entrepreneurial abilities, such as leadership, creativity, communication skills, decision-making and
problem-solving, are widely acknowledged as core competencies in entrepreneurship education. These
abilities not only support the entrepreneurial process but also strengthen students’ self-perception as
potential entrepreneurs (Somià et al., 2024; Westad Brandshaug, 2024).
Educational programs that explicitly target the development of such competencies have shown a pos-
itive influence on entrepreneurial interest. For instance, Farrokhnia et al. (2022) argue that enhancing
students’ capacity for opportunity recognition, strategic thinking and innovation significantly increases
their motivation to engage in entrepreneurial activities. Similarly, Davidsson and Honig (2003) highlight
how entrepreneurs with better-developed soft skills are more capable of successfully navigating uncer-
tainty and exploiting opportunities.
In cross-national contexts, the way these abilities are integrated into the curriculum varies. In
Washtenaw (Michigan), students frequently report high exposure to these skills through various subjects
and extracurricular programs, while in Burgos (Spain), their development appears to be more concen-
trated in optional subjects directly related to entrepreneurship.
According to Renart Vicens et al. (2022), the effect of entrepreneurship education on ability develop-
ment is more significant when the training is voluntary rather than mandatory. These findings align with
the idea that entrepreneurial abilities are best cultivated through personalized and contextually mean-
ingful learning experiences that go beyond formal instruction and permeate multiple areas of education.
Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis on the role of presence of Abilities related to
entrepreneurship:
Hypothesis 8 (H8). A higher perceived presence of abilities (i.e., Leadership, Commitment & Motivation,
Creativity/Innovation, Conflict Management & Tolerance of Pressure, Communication Skills, Negotiation &
Decision-Making, Time-Management, Ability to Find Resources) related to entrepreneurship in the curriculum
will be positively associated with students’ entrepreneurial interest.

2.6. Educational methodologies that foster entrepreneurial interest

The methodologies used in entrepreneurship education play a decisive role in shaping students’ interest
and engagement. Research consistently shows that active, student-centered teaching strategies, such as
project-based learning, simulations, teamwork and real-world case studies, are more effective in stimulat-
ing entrepreneurial motivation than traditional, lecture-based methods (Y. Li et al., 2022; Sousa &
Costa, 2022).
In particular, Comesaña-Comesaña et al. (2022) emphasize the importance of integrating social media
and digital tools to make learning experiences more relevant and collaborative. Similarly, Westad
Brandshaug (2024) highlights the transformative potential of practical experiences such as business proj-
ect design and student-run companies, which allow students to operate in a ‘liminal space’ between
being learners and becoming entrepreneurs.
Comparative evidence reveals that American schools, particularly in Michigan, tend to adopt these
active methodologies more consistently within both curricular and extracurricular contexts. In contrast,
in many parts of Spain, such approaches are either underused or inconsistently applied due to curricular
rigidity, lack of teacher training, or limited institutional support (Comisión Europea [European
Commission], 2009).
The literature recommends moving beyond isolated initiatives and instead embedding these method-
ologies across the entire educational structure. Programs such as ‘Bank-at-School’ or ‘The Shadow of an
Entrepreneur’ demonstrate how real-life engagement can turn abstract knowledge into entrepreneurial
competence (Johnson & Sherraden, 2007). These methods not only enhance skill acquisition but also
foster resilience, adaptability and a proactive mindset—traits essential for entrepreneurship in uncertain
and dynamic environments.
Consequently, we propose the following hypothesis on the role of presence of Methodologies related
to entrepreneurship:
 Cogent Social Sciences 7

Hypothesis 9 (H9). A higher perceived presence of methodologies related to entrepreneurship (i.e., Practical
Exercises, Case Studies, Project Design, Teamwork, Problem Solving and Presentation & Defence of Works) in
the curriculum will be positively associated with students’ entrepreneurial interest.

In summary, the literature confirms that entrepreneurship education is a multidimensional construct

influenced by contextual, cognitive and methodological factors. However, there is still a lack of studies
that examine how these dimensions interact within different educational systems and sociocultural set-
tings. Building on the reviewed research, this study aims to explore the role of demographic variables,
educational content and pedagogical approaches in shaping students’ entrepreneurial interest across two
distinct educational contexts: Burgos (Spain) and Washtenaw County (USA).

3. Methodology
3.1. Methods setting
We conducted a transversal study with a descriptive-interpretative design of populations through surveys
with probabilistic samples. Our aim was to compare the entrepreneurship interest of students from Burgos
(Spain), who had no formal entrepreneurship education and where actions to promote entrepreneurial
attitudes had been limited, with students at Washtenaw (Michigan, USA) where this educational discipline
has already achieved a notable degree of maturity and has been an obligatory subject since 1979.

3.2. Participants
This study was conducted in two geographical and educationally distinct regions: the province of Burgos
(Spain) and the county of Washtenaw (Michigan, USA). The data were collected during the academic year
2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring a context unaffected by the health crisis. The sample
under study was formed of 267 students, 86 from Burgos (32.21%) and 181 from the county of Washtenaw
(67.79%). Random sampling was used, taking into account the proportion of the population as a func-
tion of sex, affiliation with the educational center and rural representation (Leeuw et al., 2008). In both
groups, the obtained proportions resemble approximately those foreseen. For example, Sector: Public =
65%-75% approx., Private = 35%−25% approx.; sex balance at around 50%. Representation of a center
within a ‘rural’ habitat. Differences based on course of study were not considered.
In the case of Burgos, the student participants were from educational centers in the provincial capital
of Burgos (urban) and Villarcayo (rural), in the county of Washtenaw they were from Ann Arbor (urban)
and Saline (rural). The age range of the young people from the sample fluctuated between 13 and
17 years. The most frequent age band was between 16 and 17 years old with 146 young people (54.68%).
The frequencies and percentages in relation to both the locality and the age are shown below in
Table 1.
In Table 2, the descriptive data of the sample as a function of age and sex can be seen and, in Table 3,
as a function of the sector (public or private) of the educational center at which the participants are enrolled.

3.3. Measures
The main instrument used was the ‘Education for Entrepreneurship’ questionnaire (see Appendices A
and B) developed within the ‘RESORTES’ project of the National R&D + i Plan of the Government of Spain

Table 1. Frequencies and percentages as a function of the locality and the age of the participants.
Age in years
Province/Country  Locality 13 14 15 16 17 Total n (%)
Burgos Burgos 8 13 13 10 12 56 (20.97)
Villarcayo 1 24 5 30 (11.23)
WAshtenaw Ann Arbor 46 18 10 31 57 162 (60.67)
Saline 8 3 1 7 19 (7.11)
Total n (%) 62 (23.22) 34 (12.73) 25 (9.36) 72 (26.96) 74 (27.71) 267 (100)
8 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Table 2. Frequencies and percentages as a function of the sex and the age of participants.
Age in years
Province/Country   Sex 13 14 15 16 17 Total n (%)
Burgos Women 4 6 7 16 7 40 (14.98)
Men 4 7 7 18 10 46 (17.22)
Washtenaw Women 29 14 5 19 25 92 (34.45)
Men 25 7 6 19 32 89 (33.33)
Total n (%) 62 (23.22) 34 (12.73) 25 (9.36) 72 (26.96) 74 (27.71) 267 (100)

Table 3. Frequencies and percentages as a function of province/state and the sector (public or private) of the educa-
tional center.
Sector of the educational center
Province/county Total n (%) Public n (%) Private / state-assisted n (%)
Burgos 86 (32.20) 57 (66.3) 29 (33.7)
Washtenaw 181 (67.79) 138 (76.2) 43 (23.8)
Total 267 (100) 195 (73.0) 72 (27.0)

(EDU 2012-39080-C07-00 a 07) coordinated by the universities of Barcelona, Burgos, Deusto, La Rioja,
Santiago de Compostela and the Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED).
The questionnaire used in this study was originally developed and validated by Luis-Rico et al. (2020)
through a pilot test conducted in eight autonomous regions in Spain, following the guidelines of Shepherd
et al. (2009) for the development of a valid scale. The original pilot test established the stratification of the
final sample and its proportionality as criteria. The questionnaire was then reviewed and approved by four-
teen experts from seven Spanish universities, who rated it as highly reliable. No changes were made to the
version approved by the experts, which is the same version used in the present study.
For the current study, the Spanish version of the questionnaire was translated into English in Michigan
(USA) by a professional translator, following the International Test Commission (2017) guidelines for test
translation and adaptation, as well as the recommendations of Hernández et al. (2020). To ensure the
accuracy and clarity of the English version, a preliminary administration was conducted with a small
group of 18 students (approximately 10% of the Washtenaw sample). Participants reported no difficulties
in understanding the items, the response options, or the coding system, and they found the instrument
relevant and easy to complete. As no comprehension issues were detected, no modifications were made
to the questionnaire.
The final version of the questionnaire was therefore administered without changes to both the Burgos
and Washtenaw samples. The validity of the instrument showed adequate values in both regions (CMIN/
DF < 2.64, CFI > 0.950, GFI > 0.918, SRMR < 0.066).
The reliability of the questionnaire has been tested in previous studies published by various authors
(Escolar-Llamazares et al., 2019; Luis-Rico et al., 2020, 2020; Valdemoros-San-Emeterio et al., 2016, 2017).
As in these studies, the reliability of the questionnaire was adequate, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.812
in Burgos and 0.781 in Washtenaw (an adequate value according to authors such as Cronbach, 1951, 2021).
The questionnaire is divided into various thematic blocks: Students; Life at the education center; Free
time; Family life; Health and quality of life; Studies and job market in the future; and Entrepreneurship.
The questionnaire items referring to entrepreneurship were selected for this investigation.
In consequence, the questionnaire in use has two parts, a first part with general information that
helped to prepare the profile of the respondents and a second with information on entrepreneurship. In
Table 4, the different questions that constitute the questionnaire used in the present investigation can
be seen and the scores.

3.4. Procedure
With regard to the data-collection process at each education center, the questionnaire was administered
in a single session both in Spain and in the USA. Before the instruments were applied, permission was
requested from the directors of the education centers. They were likewise informed of the details of the
investigation and ethical considerations.
 Cogent Social Sciences 9

Table 4. Questions/variables in the questionnaire ‘education for entrepreneurship’.

N° question Block Data Measure
P. 1 to P. 7 General data Sex; age; average grade on the course; weekly spending Different forms of collecting data
money available for personal expenditure; center where as a function of the question.
studying; type of studies; business background in close
family
P. 8 Entrepreneurship Important aspects on entrepreneurship: Detect a business 1–5 Likert type scale for each of
opportunity; Improve professional development; the aspects. Open response for
Generate new job positions; Self-employment; Assuming the aspect ‘other relevant
some risk; Manage resources; Socio-economic aspects’
development; Other relevant aspects
P. 9 Entrepreneurship Indicate three subjects on the course that you think have Open response
helped entrepreneurship
P. 10 Entrepreneurship Degree of entrepreneurial interest (IE). 1–5 Likert–type scale.
P. 11 Entrepreneurship Indicate whether you know some entrepreneurship Dichotomic yes/no response. Open
network. response if answering yes.
P. 12 Entrepreneurship Importance of different motives to create your firm: Family 1–5 Likert–type scale for each of
tradition; Generate work for others; Earn money; the motives. Open response
Economic independence; Gain work; Put my ideas into under ‘other, indicate which’.
practice; Social recognition; Direct a group of people;
Contribute to economic and social growth; Others,
indicate which.
P.13. Entrepreneurship Difficulties that you perceive in society to create your own 1–5 Likert–type scale for each of
firm: assume risks; Working too many hours; Lack of the difficulties. Open response
money to start up the activity; Weak institutional for the difficulty ‘others,
support; Fear of failure; Insufficient training received for indicate which’.
entrepreneurship; Excessive bureaucracy; Lack of ideas
to set up the firm; Little family support; Others, indicate
which.
P.14. Entrepreneurship Importance (IMP) that you give to the following aspects for 1–5 Likert-type scale for IMP and
entrepreneurship and the presence (PRE) that they have for PRE of the different aspects.
had in your training: METHODOLOGIES (Theoretical Open response for the aspects
classes; Practical exercises; Case studies; Project design; ‘Others, indicate which’.
Team work, Problem resolution; Presentation and
defense of works). ABILITIES (Leadership; Commitment
and motivation; Creativity/Innovation; Conflict/crisis
management; Communicative capacity; Capacity for
negotiation and decision-making. Time management for
own work and team work; Capability for searching for
resources; Others-indicate). KNOWLEDGE (Company plan;
Marketing; Languages; Computing; Planning of
organizations; Obtaining resources; Legal aspects of
creating firms; Administrative Management;
Others-indicate).

Informed consent was also secured from the parents or legal guardians of all underage participants
in accordance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ethical research standards involv-
ing minors (APA, 2017; European Parliament, 2016/679). Participation was entirely voluntary, and ano-
nymity was guaranteed. The potential bias of relying on school director permissions is acknowledged;
while this approach ensured access to participants, it may have introduced a selection effect favoring
institutions with more favorable views on entrepreneurship education.
One or two researchers visited each center for the administration of the survey following a standard-
ized protocol.
The principal content of the curricular subjects that were offered as part of the formal education
of both curricula (Washtenaw and Burgos) coincided (see Table 5). The main difference was that part
of the curricular content, although not the part related to entrepreneurship (also an optional subject
at Washtenaw), was of an obligatory nature at Washtenaw for all students, while it was obligatory for
those students at Burgos who selected the Bachillerato (pre-university exams) modality, and it was
optional for the others.

3.5. Analysis strategy

To answer the research question on ‘How do state, sex, age, ownership of centers, family entrepreneurial
background, entrepreneurship networks and the presence in the curriculum of specific methodologies, abilities
10 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Table 5. Comparative financial content Burgos/Washtenaw 2013.

Washtenaw Burgos
Contents Obligatory optional Obligatory optional
Job-seeking procedures X X
Personal finances X X
Profile of the entrepreneur. Social role of the X X
firm
Types of firms: legal status X X
Business plan X X
Marketing X X
On-line marketing X
Tax X X
Accounting X X
Human resources management and planning X X
State economy and income X X
The role of the state in the economy X X
Social security. Systems of social protection X X
Socio-economic systems X X
Offer and demand X X
Macroeconomic indicators X X
Monetary policy X X
International economy X X

and knowledge influence entrepreneurial interest among young students?’ an automatic multiple linear
regression test was carried out in forward steps in order to know which independent variables are the
most predictive of entrepreneurial interest.
The independent variables were:

• State. Data collected by the research group according to the place of origin of the participants
(Washtenaw or Burgos).
• Sex: Participants were asked to indicate their gender by selecting one of two predefined options:
male or female (Question 1 of the questionnaire).
• Age:Students indicated their age in years by writing it in an open-response format (Question 2 of the
questionnaire).
• Ownership of centers: Students specified whether the school they attended was a public or a private/
state-assisted institution (Question 5 of the questionnaire).
• Family entrepreneurial background: Participants were asked whether any of their immediate family
members (parents, siblings, or grandparents) had experience running or owning a business (Question
7 of the questionnaire).
• Entrepreneurship networks: Students were asked whether they were aware of any entrepreneurship
networks or organizations (Question 11 of the questionnaire).
• Presence in the curriculum of abilities: Participants rated the presence of key entrepreneurial compe-
tencies in their curriculum, such as leadership, motivation, creativity, conflict management, commu-
nication, negotiation and decision-making, time management and resource-seeking. Each competency
was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not present at all; 5 = very present) (Question 14 of
the questionnaire).
• Presence in the curriculum of knowledge: Students also rated the extent to which specific areas of
entrepreneurial knowledge were covered in their academic curriculum. These areas included busi-
ness planning, marketing, languages, information technology, organizational planning, access to
resources, legal aspects of starting a business and administrative management. As with previous
variables, responses were collected on a 5-point Likert scale reflecting perceived presence (Question
14 of the questionnaire).
• Presence in the curriculum of methodologies: Students evaluated how frequently different teaching
methodologies related to entrepreneurship had been present in their formal education. These
included theoretical classes, practical exercises, case studies, project design, teamwork, problem solv-
ing and oral presentation/defense of projects. Each item was rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1
(not present at all) to 5 (very frequently present) (Question 14 of the questionnaire).
 Cogent Social Sciences 11

The dependent variable was:

• Entrepreneurial interest: Students indicated their personal level of interest in becoming entrepreneurs
by rating it on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = no interest at all; 5 = very strong interest) (Question 10 of
the questionnaire).

The regression equation that was tested was as follows:

‘Entrepreneurial Interest = β0 + β1(State) + β2(Sex) + β3(Age) + β4(Ownership of centers) + β5(Family entre-
preneurial background) + β6(Entrepreneurship networks) + β7(Presence in the curriculum of methodologies
(theoretical classes)) + β8(Presence in the curriculum of methodologies (practical exercises)) + β9(Presence in
the curriculum of methodologies (case studies)) + β10(Presence in the curriculum of methodologies (project
design)) + β11(Presence in the curriculum of methodologies (Teamwork)) + β12(Presence in the curriculum of
methodologies (problem solving)) + β13(Presence in the curriculum of methodologies (presentation and
defense of works)) + β14(Presence in the curriculum of abilities (Leadership)) + β15(Presence in the curriculum
of abilities (Commitment and motivation)) + β16(Presence in the curriculum of abilities (Creativity/innovation))
+ β17(Presence in the curriculum of abilities (Conflict management, Tolerance of pressure)) + β18(Presence in
the curriculum of abilities (Communication skills)) + β19(Presence in the curriculum of abilities (Negotiation
and decision making skills)) + β20(Presence in the curriculum of abilities (Time management for own work
and that of the team)) + β21(Presence in the curriculum of abilities (Ability to find resources)) + β22(Presence
in the curriculum of knowledge (Business plan)) + β23(Presence in the curriculum of knowledge (Marketing))
+ β24(Presence in the curriculum of knowledge (Languages)) + β25(Presence in the curriculum of knowledge
(Information technology)) + β26(Presence in the curriculum of knowledge (Planning organization)) + β27(Pres-
ence in the curriculum of knowledge (Access to resources)) + β28(Presence in the curriculum of knowledge
(Legal aspects)) + β29(Presence in the curriculum of knowledge (Administration management)) + ε.
We employed p.< 0.05 as threshold for statistical significance in all the analyses.
The analysis was conducted with the statistical software package SPSS v25 (Field, 2024).1

4. Results
Before answering the research question (How do the Independence variables state, sex, age, ownership
of centers, family entrepreneurial background, entrepreneurship networks and the presence in the cur-
riculum of the specific methodologies, abilities and knowledge influence entrepreneurial interest among
young students?) and the hypotheses raised, the assumptions for the linear regression were tested. The
assumptions of linearity were tested (the sample showed low correlations between entrepreneurial inter-
est and all the independent variables (r < 0.250), independence (Durbin Watson statistic = 1.013) and
some acceptable indices of low collinearity in the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) < 1.120 and eigenvalues
of < 4.751, all acceptable according to the scientific literature (Montgomery et al., 2001).
The results indicated that 20.5% of entrepreneurial interest was predicted by the Family entrepreneur-
ial background, Knowledge (Marketing and Administration management), Abilities (Communication skills)
and Methodology (Team work). In other words, the multiple regression model revealed that 20.5% of the
variance in entrepreneurial interest was explained by a combination of predictors. Among these, Family
entrepreneurial background (β = −0.425, p = 0.004), Knowledge in marketing (β = −0.475, p = 0.009),
Abilities in communication skills (β = −0.413, p = 0.017) and exposure to Teamwork Methodologies (β =
−0.505, p = 0.033) showed negative associations with entrepreneurial interest. Whereas Knowledge in
administration management (β = +0.469, p = 0.010) showed a positive association. These results suggest
a complex relationship where some aspects of entrepreneurship education and family background may
not always align with higher entrepreneurial interest among students.
Following Guerrero Sánchez et al. (2024), we present coefficient’ table in Table 6 and the results in
Figure 1.
Hypothesis 1 proposed that Students in Michigan (Washtenaw) will report higher levels of entrepreneurial
interest than students in Burgos (Spain), due to their earlier and broader exposure to entrepreneurship educa-
tion in their region. This hypothesis was not supported. The variable state (Burgos vs. Washtenaw) did not
emerge as a significant predictor of entrepreneurial interest in the regression model (p > 0.05). This
12 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Table 6. Regression results.

95% Confidence interval
β Standard error t Sig. Lower Upper Importance
Interception 3.775 0.164 22.972 0.000* 3.451 4.098
Family entrepreneurial −0.425 0.147 −2.890 0.004* −0.714 −0.135 0.179
background
Knowledge: marketing −0.475 0.179 −2.652 0.009* −0.828 −0.122 0.177
Knowledge: administration 0.469 0.181 2.698 0.010* 0.113 0.825 0.145
management
Abilities: communication −0.413 0.172 −2.405 0.017* −0.751 −0.075 0.124
skills
Methodology: team work −0.505 0.236 −2.141 0.033* −0.970 −0.040 0.098
*Sig< 0.05.

Figure 1. Effects of objective: entrepreneurial interest. Notes: β = coefficient (or beta); p = statistical significance (p value);
imp = importance (or relative weight). The results based on the hypotheses raised in this study are shown below.

suggests that, after controlling for other variables, the regional differences in entrepreneurship education
did not significantly influence students’ entrepreneurial interest in this sample.
Hypothesis 2 proposed that Students enrolled in private institutions will report higher entrepreneurial inter-
est than those in public schools, as private schools may offer more opportunities for entrepreneurship-related
learning and extracurricular activities. H2 was not supported. The variable ownership of centers (public vs.
private) did not show a statistically significant association with entrepreneurial interest (p > 0.05). Thus,
school ownership did not significantly predict differences in entrepreneurial interest within the study sample.
Hypothesis 3 proposed that Male students will report higher levels of entrepreneurial interest than female
students, consistent with documented gender gaps in entrepreneurial intention. The analysis did not support
H3. The variable sex was not a significant predictor of entrepreneurial interest (p > 0.05), indicating no
statistically significant gender differences in the current study.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that Older students will report higher levels of entrepreneurial interest, as entre-
preneurial aspirations tend to increase during late adolescence. H4 was not supported. The variable age did
 Cogent Social Sciences 13

not significantly predict entrepreneurial interest (p > 0.05), suggesting that within the studied age range
(13-17 years), age was not a significant factor in determining entrepreneurial interest.
Hypothesis 5 proposed that Students with a family entrepreneurial background will report higher levels of
entrepreneurial interest compared to those without such background, as family exposure to entrepreneurship
provides role models and experiential learning opportunities. Contrary to expectations, H5 was not sup-
ported. The analysis revealed a significant negative association between family entrepreneurial back-
ground and entrepreneurial interest (β = −0.425, p = 0.004). This indicates that, after controlling for other
factors, students with family members involved in entrepreneurship reported lower levels of entrepre-
neurial interest. This unexpected finding may reflect the complex perceptions of entrepreneurship within
families, where exposure to its challenges and risks might dampen interest.
Hypothesis 6 proposed that Students who are aware of entrepreneurship networks will report higher
entrepreneurial interest than those who are not, due to access to resources, mentorship and exposure to entre-
preneurial ecosystems. H6 was not supported. The variable entrepreneurship networks did not signifi-
cantly predict entrepreneurial interest (p > 0.05).
Hypothesis 7 proposed that Students who acquire financial knowledge (i.e., Business Plan, Marketing,
Languages, Information Technology, Planning Organization, Access to Resources, Legal Aspects and
Administration Management) in formal education will be more likely to express interest in entrepreneurship.
H7 was partially supported. Among the knowledge components analyzed, only Administration
Management was positively and significantly associated with entrepreneurial interest (β = +0.469,
p = 0.010), while Marketing showed a significant but negative relationship (β = −0.475, p = 0.009). The
other knowledge areas did not significantly predict entrepreneurial interest.
Hypothesis 8 proposed that A higher perceived presence of abilities (i.e., Leadership, Commitment &
Motivation, Creativity/Innovation, Conflict Management & Tolerance of Pressure, Communication Skills,
Negotiation & Decision-Making, Time-Management, Ability to Find Resources) related to entrepreneurship in the
curriculum will be positively associated with students’ entrepreneurial interest. H8 was not supported. Only
Communication Skills emerged as a significant predictor (β = −0.413, p = 0.017), but with a negative rela-
tionship, suggesting that students who reported greater exposure to communication skills in their curricu-
lum showed lower entrepreneurial interest. The other abilities were not statistically significant.
Hypothesis 9 proposed that A higher perceived presence of methodologies related to entrepreneurship
(i.e., Practical Exercises, Case Studies, Project Design, Teamwork, Problem Solving and Presentation & Defence
of Works) in the curriculum will be positively associated with students’ entrepreneurial interest. H9 was not
supported. Among the methodologies, only Teamwork was a significant predictor (β = −0.505, p = 0.033),
and, contrary to expectations, the relationship was negative. This suggests that greater exposure to
teamwork methodologies was associated with lower entrepreneurial interest.

5. Discussion and conclusion

This study set out to examine the factors that influence entrepreneurial interest among students in
Burgos (Spain) and Washtenaw (USA), with a focus on individual characteristics (state, sex, age, family
entrepreneurial background, school ownership), as well as students’ perceived exposure to
entrepreneurship-related knowledge, abilities and methodologies in their formal education. The multiple
regression analysis accounted for 20.5% of the variance in entrepreneurial interest, revealing a nuanced
and, at times, unexpected pattern of associations.
Contrary to initial expectations, no significant differences in entrepreneurial interest were found
based on state (H1), school ownership (H2), gender (H3), or age (H4). These findings challenge assump-
tions that regional differences in entrepreneurship education, access to private school resources,
gendered attitudes, or age differences significantly shape entrepreneurial interest. The absence of a
significant effect of awareness of entrepreneurship networks (H6) further suggests that, in this sample,
external exposure to entrepreneurial ecosystems may not play a decisive role in shaping students’ inter-
est in entrepreneurship.
One of the most surprising findings was the significant negative association between family entrepre-
neurial background and entrepreneurial interest (H5) (β = −0.425, p = 0.004). While previous literature
14 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

often highlights the positive role of family role models in shaping entrepreneurial aspirations (Luis-Rico
et al., 2020; Pablo-Lerchundi et al., 2014; Zhao et al., 2020), the results of this study suggest a more
complex dynamic. It is possible that students with family members engaged in entrepreneurship develop
a more critical or cautious perspective on entrepreneurship, perhaps due to exposure to the challenges,
risks and uncertainties inherent in starting and running a business.
Regarding the impact of entrepreneurship-related knowledge (H7), the results were mixed. Among the
knowledge areas, administration management emerged as a positive and significant predictor of entrepre-
neurial interest (β = 0.469, p = 0.010), aligning with the findings of Coduras et al. (2010) and Hou et al. (2022),
who emphasize the value of managerial literacy in enhancing entrepreneurial confidence and preparedness.
In contrast, marketing knowledge showed a significant but negative relationship (β = −0.475, p = 0.009),
suggesting that exposure to marketing concepts may lead students to develop a more cautious view of
entrepreneurship, possibly due to heightened awareness of market challenges and competition.
For the abilities dimension (H8), only communication skills were significant, but unexpectedly, the rela-
tionship was negative (β = −0.413, p = 0.017). While prior research has often emphasized the importance of
communication, leadership and networking skills in fostering entrepreneurial success (Somià et al., 2024),
the negative association found in this study suggests a need to further explore how communication skills
are taught and perceived within the context of entrepreneurship education. It is possible that communica-
tion skills, as delivered in these curricula, are not sufficiently aligned with entrepreneurial competencies, or
that students perceive these skills as generic rather than specifically entrepreneurial.
Similarly, for the methodologies dimension (H9), only teamwork was a significant predictor, but with
a negative association (β = −0.505, p = 0.033). These finding challenges previous studies (Y. Li et al., 2022;
Sousa & Costa, 2022) that highlight the benefits of teamwork in fostering entrepreneurial engagement.
It may be that teamwork activities in these educational contexts are perceived as routine academic exer-
cises rather than as opportunities for leadership, problem-solving, or entrepreneurial simulation. This
underscores the importance of not just including active methodologies in the curriculum, but ensuring
they are purposefully designed to foster entrepreneurial thinking.
Taken together, these results emphasize that the mere presence of entrepreneurship-related knowl-
edge, abilities, or methodologies in the curriculum is not sufficient to enhance students’ entrepreneurial
interest. Rather, the quality, relevance and delivery of these components appear to play a crucial role.
The findings align with the view that effective entrepreneurship education must go beyond content
inclusion and focus on contextualization, relevance to students’ experiences and opportunities for authen-
tic, experiential learning (McCormick, 2009; Westad Brandshaug, 2024).
In contrast to some previous studies, no significant differences were found in entrepreneurial interest
based on gender, age, country of origin, or type of school. This may reflect the relatively homogeneous
age range of participants or similarities in the curricular structures of the participating institutions.
Overall, this study contributes to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the effectiveness of
entrepreneurship education depends not merely on what is taught, but how it is taught, perceived and
integrated into students’ broader learning experiences. A synergistic combination of relevant knowledge,
well-developed soft skills, and thoughtfully implemented active learning methodologies is essential to
nurture entrepreneurial interest among young learners.
These findings also point to several avenues for future research. It will be important to explore quali-
tative dimensions of how students experience entrepreneurship education, how they perceive specific
components like marketing, communication and teamwork, and how family narratives around entrepre-
neurship shape attitudes. Additionally, longitudinal studies could help clarify how educational experiences
and family background interact over time to influence actual entrepreneurial behavior.

5.1. Limitations and avenues for future research

Despite offering novel insights into the predictors of entrepreneurial interest among secondary school
students, this study is not without limitations.
First, although random sampling was employed, data collection was limited to four specific geograph-
ical locations—two in Spain and two in the United States. As a result, the generalizability of findings to
other regions or educational systems should be approached with caution. Future research should aim to
 Cogent Social Sciences 15

expand the sample to include more diverse cultural, socioeconomic and educational contexts in both
countries and beyond.
Second, the cross-sectional nature of the study prevents causal inferences. While the regression model
identifies significant predictors of entrepreneurial interest—namely family entrepreneurial background,
knowledge in marketing and administrative management, communication skills and exposure to
teamwork-oriented methodologies—longitudinal or experimental designs would allow for a more robust
analysis of the causal mechanisms underlying these relationships. In this sense, future studies could
adopt pre-post intervention models to evaluate the impact of specific educational programs or teaching
strategies on entrepreneurial motivation over time.
Third, although the predictive power of the model (20.5%) is statistically significant, it suggests the
presence of additional unexplored variables that may further explain students’ entrepreneurial interest.
Future research could explore the role of psychological traits (eg self-efficacy, resilience, creativity), con-
textual factors (eg school climate, teacher attitudes), or institutional resources (eg access to mentoring,
incubators, or competitions).
Additionally, given the identified importance of communication skills and teamwork-based methodol-
ogies, it would be relevant to conduct qualitative or mixed-methods research to explore how students
experience these dimensions in real classroom settings. Such approaches could shed light on the peda-
gogical dynamics that most effectively nurture entrepreneurial thinking.
Future endeavors should also focus on designing and evaluating educational interventions that inten-
tionally develop these key predictors. For instance, pilot programs could prioritize active methodologies
across subject areas and integrate transversal skill-building (eg communication, collaboration) in both
formal and informal learning environments. These initiatives could be developed in collaboration with
educators, policymakers and practitioners to ensure contextual relevance and practical impact.
Finally, it is essential to investigate not only the factors that influence entrepreneurial interest but also
the degree to which this interest translates into actual entrepreneurial behavior. Longitudinal studies
following students into adulthood would be particularly valuable in identifying the long-term effective-
ness of entrepreneurship education, especially in relation to when and how business-related knowledge
and skills are best introduced throughout a student’s academic trajectory.

Note
1. Data and SPSS scripts are available upon request.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The authors acknowledges that this publication is part of the I + D + i project PID2019-104408 GB-I00, funded by
MCIN/ AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033/.

About the authors

María Consuelo Digón-Arroba, Affiliation: Department of Romance Languages and Literatures, University of Michigan,
USA; Degree: PhD in Education (University of Burgos); Research interests: bilingualism, educational entrepreneurship,
cross-border cooperation, and cultural policies.
María-Camino Escolar-Llamazares (Corresponding author), Affiliation: Department of Health Sciences, University of
Burgos, Burgos, Spain; Academic degree: PhD from the University of Salamanca; Research interests: academic anxiety,
emotional well-being in the educational environment, entrepreneurship education. ORCID: 0000-0003-2448-0267
Cristina di Giusto-Valle, Affiliation: Department of Educational Sciences, University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain; Academic
degree: PhD from the University of Oviedo; Research interests: effective personality, entrepreneurship education,
teaching innovation. ORCID: 0000‑0003‑0440‑489X
16 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Tamara de la Torre-Cruz, Affiliation: Department of Educational Sciences, University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain;
Academic Degree: PhD in Educational Sciences from the University of Burgos; Research interests: lifelong learning,
entrepreneurship training, teaching innovation. ORCID: 0000‑0003‑4484‑8110
Isabel Luis-Rico, Affiliation: Department of Educational Sciences, University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain; Academic
Degree: PhD in Educational Sciences (University of Burgos); Research interests: teaching performance, entrepreneur-
ship education, educational policies, and adult university training. ORCID: 0000‑0001‑5857‑9404
Carmen Palmero-Cámara, Affiliation: Department of Educational Sciences, University of Burgos, Burgos, Spain;
Academic Degree: PhD in Philosophy and Educational Sciences. Full Professor in the Area of Theory and History of
Education; Research interests: history of education, entrepreneurial culture, education of older adults, socio-educational
policies. ORCID: 0000‑0002‑8828‑1307
Alfredo Jiménez, Affiliation: Department of Management, KEDGE Business School, Talence (Bordeaux), France;
Academic Degree: PhD in Business Management; Full Professor at Kedge Business School; Research interests: busi-
ness internationalization, entrepreneurship, institutional political risk. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7811-5113

ORCID
María-Camino Escolar-Llamazares http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2448-0267

References
Abdallah, A., & Alkaabi, A. M. (2023). Role of teachers in reinforcing students cultural and heritage awareness at Abu
Dhabi schools to meet global challenge. Cogent Social Sciences, 9(1), 1–12 . https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2023.21
94734
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.
org/ethics/code/
Coduras, A., Levie, J., Kelley, D., Saemundsson, R., & Schott, T. (2010). Global entrepreneurship monitor special report: A
global perspective on entrepreneurship education and training. GERA.
Comesaña-Comesaña, P., Amorós-Pons, A., & Alexeeva-Alexeev, I. (2022). Technocreativity, social networks and entre-
preneurship: Diagnostics of skills in university students. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning
(iJET), 17(05), 180–195. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v17i05.28183
Comisión Europea [European Commission]. (2009). Proyecto de Procedimiento BEST. El espíritu empresarial en la
Educación y Formación Profesional. Dirección General de Empresa e Industria. [BEST Procedure Project.
Entrepreneurship in Vocational Education and Training. Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry]
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.
org/10.1007/BF02310555
Cronbach, L. J. (2021). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures [Internet]. http://www.stanford.
edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/Reports_Papers/My%20Current%20ThoughtsSubmit.do
Daswati, D., Wirawan, H., Hattab, S., Salam, R., & Iskandar, A. S. (2022). The effect of psychological capital on perfor-
mance through the role of career engagement: Evidence from Indonesian public organizations. Cogent Social
Sciences, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2021.2012971
Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of
Business Venturing, 18(3), 301–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00097-6
DeTienne, D., & Chandler, G. (2004). Opportunity identification and its role in the entrepreneurial classroom: A ped-
agogical approach and empirical test. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 242–257. https://doi.
org/10.5465/amle.2004.14242103
Díaz-García, C., & Brush, C. G. (2022). Family social capital and youth entrepreneurial self-efficacy: A comparative
study of Spain and the United States. Journal of Small Business Management, 60(4), 845–870. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00472778.2021.1879493
Doan, K. H. (2022). The differences in the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial knowledge: A
cross-country analysis. Management & Marketing. Challenges for the Knowledge Society, 17(1), 73–97. https://doi.
org/10.2478/mmcks-2022-0005
Eesley, C. E. (2023). Entrepreneurial role models and the intergenerational transmission of start-up intention.
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 35(1-2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2022.2084540
Escolar-Llamazares, M. C., Luis-Rico, I., de la Torre-Cruz, T., Herrero, Á., Jiménez, A., Palmero-Cámara, C., &
Jiménez-Eguizábal, A. (2019). The socio-educational, psychological and family-related antecedents of entrepreneur-
ial intentions among Spanish Youth. Pedagogia Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 11(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su11051252
European Commission. (2019). Entrepreneurship education at school in Europe. Publications Office of the European
Union. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/74a7d356-dc53-11e5-8fea-01aa75ed71a1
 Cogent Social Sciences 17

European Parliament. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016
on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such
data (General Data Protection Regulation). Official Journal of the European Union, L119, 1–88. https://eur-lex.europa.
eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32016R0679
Everett, C. R. (2024). Does more education lead to better startup funding outcomes? Cogent Economics & Finance,
12(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2024.2354281
Fairlie, R. W. (2022). National report on early-stage entrepreneurship in the United States: 2021. Ewing Marion Kauffman
Foundation. https://indicators.kauffman.org/reports/early-stage-entrepreneurship-national-2021/
Farrokhnia, M., Baggen, Y., Biemans, H., & Noroozi, O. (2022). Bridging the fields of entrepreneurship and education:
The role of philosophical perspectives in fostering opportunity identification. The International Journal of
Management Education, 20(2), 100632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100632
Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2015). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and inten-
tion: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jsbm.12065
Field, A. (2024). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (6th ed.). Sage.
GEM U.S. Team. (2024). Global entrepreneurship monitor United States 2023/2024 report. Babson College. https://www.
gemconsortium.org/report/51493
Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Spain. (2023). Informe GEM 2023: Juventud y emprendimiento en España. GEM Consortium.
https://observatoriodelemprendimiento.es/gem-spain/wp-content/uploads/Informes-Nacionales/Informe-GEM-
Espana-2023-2024.pdf
Guerrero Sánchez, P., Hernández Jaimes, B. G., Bonilla Sánchez, F. D J., Sánchez Guevara, I., & Guerrero Grajeda, J.
(2024). Las estrategias de sobrevivencia de las microempresas en México durante la pandemia [The survival strat-
egies of microenterprises in Mexico during the pandemic]. Revista Universidad y Empresa, 26(46), 1–30. https://doi.
org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/empresa/a.13581
Gibb, A. (1987). Designing effective programmes for encouraging the business start-up process: Lessons from UK
experience. Journal of European Industrial Training, 11(4), 24–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb002229
Hernández, A., Hidalgo, M. D., Hambleton, R. K., & Gómez-Benito, J. (2020). International test commission guidelines
for test adaptation: A criterion checklist. Psicothema, 32(3), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2019.306
Honig, B. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: Toward a model of contingency-based business planning. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 3(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.14242112
Hou, F., Su, Y., Qi, M., Chen, J., & Tang, J. (2022). A multilevel model of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneur-
ial intention: Opportunity recognition as a mediator and entrepreneurial learning as a moderator. Frontiers in
Psychology, 13, 837388. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.837388
International Test Commission. (2017). The ITC guidelines for translating and adapting test (2nd ed.). https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1975.tb00322.x
Jiménez, A., Palmero-Cámara, C., González-Santos, M. J., González-Bernal, J., & Jiménez-Eguizábal, J. A. (2015). The
impact of educational levels on formal and informal entrepreneurship. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18(3), 204–
212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brq.2015.02.002
Johnson, E., & Sherraden, M. S. (2007). From financial literacy to financial capability among youth. The Journal of
Sociology & Social Welfare, 34(3), 119–145. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol34/iss3/7/ https://doi.
org/10.15453/0191-5096.3276
Jones, C., & English, J. (2004). A contemporary approach to entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 46(8/9),
416–423. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910410569533
Katz, J. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of american entrepreneurship education: 1876–1999.
Journal of Business Venturing, 18(2), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(02)00098-8
Khan, G. M., & Almoharby, D. (2007). Towards enhancing entrepreneurship development in Oman. Journal of
Enterprising Culture, 15(04), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495807000198
Kirman Bilgin, A., & İnaltekin, T. (2022). Investigating the effectiveness of integrated entrepreneurship education.
Education and Science, 47(210), 139–160. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2022.10888
Klandt, K. (2004). Entrepreneurship education and research in German-speaking Europe. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 3(3), 293–301. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.14242226
Klofsten, M., Urbano, D., & Heaton, S. (2021). Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: An overview. Technovation, 99(July
2020), 102177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2020.102177
Leeuw, E. D., Hox, J. J., & Dillman, D. A. (2008). International handbook of survey methodology. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Li, J., Zhang, Y., & Matlay, H. (2003). Entrepreneurship education in China. Education + Training, 45(8/9), 495–505.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00400910310508883
Li, Y., Sha, Y., Lv, Y., Wu, Y. J., & Liu, H. (2022). Moderated mediating mechanism effects of Chinese university entre-
preneurship education on independent student entrepreneurship. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 782386. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.782386
Liñán, F., & Chen, Y. W. (2022). The influence of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship
Research Journal, 12(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1515/erj-2021-0226
18 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Liu, F., Yang, G., & Singhdong, P. (2024). A moderated mediation model of entrepreneurship education, competence,
and environmental dynamics on entrepreneurial performance. Sustainability, 16(19), 8502. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su16198502
Luis-Rico, I., Escolar-Llamazares, M. C., de la Torre-Cruz, T., Herrero, Á., Jiménez, A., Val, P. A., Palmero-Cámara, C., &
Jiménez-Eguizábal, A. (2020). The association of parental interest in entrepreneurship with the entrepreneurial
interest of Spanish youth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(13), 4744. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17134744
Luis-Rico, I., Escolar-Llamazares, M. C., de la Torre-Cruz, T., Jiménez, A., Herrero, Á., Palmero-Cámara, C., &
Jiménez-Eguizábal, A. (2020). Entrepreneurial interest and entrepreneurial competence among Spanish youth: An
analysis with artificial neural networks. Sustainability, 12(4), 1351. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12041351
Lusardi, A., Mitchell, O. S., & Curto, V. (2010). Financial literacy among the young: Evidence and implications for consumer
policy. Recuperado el 6 de mayo del 2015 http://www.dartmouth.edu/~alusardi/Papers/Financial_literacy_young.pdf
McCormick, M. H. (2009). The effectiveness of youth financial education: A review of the literature. Journal of Financial
Counseling and Planning, 20(1), 71.
Michigan Department of Education. (2023). CTE content standards. https://www.michigan.gov/mde/-/media/Project/
Websites/mde/CTE/cte_cluster/CTE_Content_Standards.pdf
Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience and earnings. Columbia University Press.
Ministerio de Educación y Formación Profesional. (2024). Estadística de la enseñanza de la educación financiera en ESO.
Ministerio de Educación, Formación Profesional y Deportes
Montgomery, D. C., Peck, E. A., & Vining, G. G. (2001). Introduction to linear regression analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley.
Nafukho, F. M., & Falebita, A. (2020). Funding models and sustainability of entrepreneurship programmes in second-
ary education. International Journal of Educational Development, 76, 102233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2020.
102233
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). Policy brief on recent developments in youth
entrepreneurship. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2020/03/policy-brief-on-recent-
developments-in-youth-entrepreneurship_bf53d760/5f5c9b4e-en.pdf
Pablo-Lerchundi, I., Morales-Alonso, G., & Vargas-P, A. M. (2014). Does family matter? A study of parents’ influence on
the entrepreneurial intention of technical degrees students in Spain. In D. Carlucci, J. C. Spender, & G. Schiuma (Eds.),
Knowledge and management models for sustainable growth (pp. 1753–U158). Inst Knowledge Asset Management.
Peterman, N., & Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: Influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00035.x
Qader, A. A., Zhang, J., Ashraf, S. F., Syed, N., Omhand, K., & Nazir, M. (2022). Capabilities and opportunities: Linking
knowledge management practices of textile-based SMEs on sustainable entrepreneurship and organizational per-
formance in China. Sustainability, 14(4), 2219. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042219
Renart Vicens, G., Vall-Llosera Casanovas, L., Saurina Canals, C., & Serra, L. (2022). Entrepreneurship analysis in Spanish
universities. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 12(1), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/HESWBL-11-
2020-0248
Schultz, T. W. (1959). Investment in man: An economist’s view. Social Service Review, 33(2), 109–117. https://doi.
org/10.1086/640656
Schunk, D. M. (1995). Self-efficacy and education and instruction. In E. J. E. Maddux (Ed.) Self-efficacy, adaptation, and
adjustment: Theory, research, and application (pp. 281–303). Plenum Press.
Scott, N., & Hills, G. (2021). Entrepreneurship curricula in Michigan high schools: A statewide audit. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 24(4), 1–17.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Academy of Management
Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.2791611
Shepherd, D. A., Kuskova, V., & Patzelt, H. (2009). Measuring the values that underlie sustainable development: The
development of a valid scale. Journal of Economic Psychology, 30(2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2008.
08.003
Smith, K., Rogers-Draycott, M. C., & Bozward, D. (2022). Full curriculum-based venture creation programmes: Current
knowledge and research challenges. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Research, 28(4), 1106–
1127. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-09-2020-0644
Solomon, G., Duffy, S., & Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nation-
wide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 1(1), 1–22.
Somià, T., Pittaway, L., & Benedict, P. (2024). Rethinking entrepreneurial competencies: A gender-focused analysis of
students’ perceived competencies. The International Journal of Management Education, 22(3), 101038. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.101038
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., & Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of
science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. Journal of Business Venturing,
22(4), 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Sousa, M. J., & Costa, J. M. (2022). Discovering entrepreneurship competencies through problem-based learning in
higher education students. Education Sciences, 12(3), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12030185
Stewart, W., & Carpenter, K. (2023). IT skills and digital start-up intentions among U.S. high-school seniors. Journal of
Entrepreneurship Education, 26(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.5465/jee.2023.261
 Cogent Social Sciences 19

Submit Consulting. (2009). Toward effective education of innovative entrepreneurs in small business. Initial Results from
a Survey of College Students and Graduates.
Valdemoros-San-Emeterio, M. A., Ponce de León, A., & Gradaille, R. (2016). Actividad Física de Ocio Juvenil y Desarrollo
Humano. Revista Psicología Del Deporte, 25, 39–44.
Valdemoros-San-Emeterio, M. A., Sanz-Arazuri, E., & Ponce-de-León-Elizondo, A. (2017). Digital leisure and perceived
family functioning in youth of upper secondary education/Ocio digital y ambiente familiar en estudiantes de
Educación Postobligatoria. Comunicar, 25(50), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.3916/C50-2017-09
Wei, H., Ding, A., & Gao, Z. (2024). The application of project management methodology in the training of college
students’ innovation and entrepreneurship ability under sustainable education. Systems and Soft Computing,
6(January), 200073. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sasc.2024.200073
Westad Brandshaug, S. (2024). Transformation in the liminal space ‘in between’ student and entrepreneur. The
International Journal of Management Education, 22(2), 100962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2024.100962
Wiramihardja, K., N’dary, V., Al Mamun, A., Munikrishnan, U. T., Yang, Q., Salamah, A. A., & Hayat, N. (2022). Sustainable
economic development through entrepreneurship: A study on attitude, opportunity recognition, and entrepre-
neurial intention among university students in Malaysia. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(April), 866753. https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2022.86675
Zhao, W. G. W., Liu, X., & Zhang, H. (2020). Family embeddedness and medical students’ interest for entrepreneurship
as an alternative career choice: Evidence from China. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 593235. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2020.593235
20 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Appendix A. RESORTES project questionnaire (in Spanish)

Cogent Social Sciences 21
22 M. C. DIGÓN-ARROBA ET AL.

Appendix B. RESORTES project questionnaire (in English)

Cogent Social Sciences 23