Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates how entrepreneurship education influences undergraduates’ entrepreneurial intentions, highlighting the critical moderating role of an entrepreneurial family background. A questionnaire was used to collect empirical data, involving 2,386 Chinese university students. Additionally, partial least squares structural equation modeling was employed to analyze the collected data. The results show that the entrepreneurship education portfolio significantly influences students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Furthermore, the moderating effect of an entrepreneurial family background was confirmed. These findings offer valuable insights for multiple stakeholders, including higher education institutions, policymakers, educators, and industry partners, when implementing practical activities related to entrepreneurial education.

Plain Language Summary

This study focuses on uncovering the underlying link between entrepreneurship education and undergraduates’ entrepreneurial intention, particularly considering the subtle moderating role of entrepreneurial family background, which provides a new perspective for understanding and cultivating innovative and entrepreneurial talents. An in-depth analysis of 2,386 Chinese university students through questionnaires and partial least squares, we have constructed a comprehensive framework for entrepreneurship education portfolio, encompassing four core components: teaching content, teacher guidance, entrepreneurial competition, and entrepreneurial practice. The study found that entrepreneurial family background plays a crucial moderating role, serving as a powerful catalyst for enhancing entrepreneurial intention. By deeply analyzing the relationship between entrepreneurship education and undergraduates’ entrepreneurial intention, as well as the moderating role of entrepreneurial family background, this finding has profound implications for guiding family and school education strategies, as well as providing significant theoretical support for the development of more targeted entrepreneurial support policies.

Keywords

entrepreneurship education portfolio entrepreneurial family background entrepreneurial education

Introduction

In the era of “mass entrepreneurship and innovation,” college students’ entrepreneurship has become a vital engine for promoting high-quality economic development (Zhang et al., 2020). However, previous research has found that the entrepreneurial intention of Chinese college students remains generally low, with a success rate of less than 3% (Zhang et al., 2020). Effectively stimulating college students’ entrepreneurial intention has thus become a focal point for both academia and governments (Liu et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2021). In recent years, university entrepreneurship education, as a crucial means of cultivating entrepreneurial talent, has been the subject of considerable debate regarding its effectiveness (Chen, Wang, & Liu, 2023; Zhang & Li, 2023). While some studies have found that entrepreneurship education significantly enhances college students’ entrepreneurial intention (Nabi et al., 2017), others suggest its impact is minimal (Oosterbeek et al., 2010). This divergence may stem from the fact that existing research predominantly focuses on individual elements of entrepreneurship education, overlooking the synergistic effects among various components (Cai et al., 2019). In reality, entrepreneurship education is a complex and systematic endeavor, and its effectiveness depends on the organic integration of multiple factors, such as teaching content, teacher guidance, entrepreneurship competitions, and entrepreneurship practice (Wang et al., 2022). Nevertheless, current research on the combined effects of entrepreneurial education remains insufficient, lacking a systematic and holistic perspective (Li et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2024).

Additionally, recent advancements in entrepreneurship education research have begun to explore the multidimensional effects of entrepreneurial education portfolios (Liu et al., 2023). Significant complementary effects exist among the elements of entrepreneurship education, and the impact of a single element may be underestimated (Wang et al., 2022). The influence of entrepreneurial education portfolios on entrepreneurial intention exhibits nonlinear characteristics, with different combinations of elements potentially generating a “1 + 1 > 2” effect (Liu et al., 2023). Specifically, a well-designed entrepreneurial curriculum significantly enhances students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy, thereby positively influencing their entrepreneurial intention (Brown & Mason, 2023). Teacher guidance, on the other hand, provides personalized feedback and mentorship, helping students overcome psychological barriers in the entrepreneurial process while bolstering their entrepreneurial confidence (Anderson & Jack, 2022). Entrepreneurship competitions simulate real entrepreneurial environments, stimulating students’ competitive spirit and innovative thinking while providing a platform to showcase and practice entrepreneurial ideas (Kuratko & Morris, 2023). Finally, entrepreneurship practice offers real-world entrepreneurial experiences, enabling students to translate theoretical knowledge into practical skills, thereby strengthening their entrepreneurial willingness (Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2023). These findings provide strong theoretical support for this study’s construction of a four-dimensional entrepreneurial education portfolio comprising “teaching content, teacher guidance, entrepreneurship competition, and entrepreneurship practice” (Liu et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022).

Moreover, family background may also influence the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education (Anderson & Jack, 2022). Students with an entrepreneurial family background may be more likely to translate entrepreneurial education into actual entrepreneurial intention (Obschonka et al., 2015). However, existing studies often treat entrepreneurial family background as a control variable, neglecting its moderating role in the mechanism of entrepreneurship education (Cui & Sun, 2023; Sun et al., 2024). Entrepreneurial family background not only directly affects entrepreneurial intention but may also indirectly influence entrepreneurial behavior by moderating the pathways through which entrepreneurship education operates (Zhang et al., 2022). This finding provides a critical foundation for this study’s inclusion of entrepreneurial family background as a moderating variable.

Against this backdrop, this study constructs a four-dimensional entrepreneurial education portfolio comprising “teaching content, teacher guidance, entrepreneurship competition, and entrepreneurship practice” and introduces entrepreneurial family background as a moderating variable to explore the impact mechanism of entrepreneurial education portfolios on college students’ entrepreneurial intentions. This research not only helps clarify the root causes of the controversy surrounding the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education but also addresses the gap in existing studies regarding the combined effects of entrepreneurial education and individual differences (Fang & Zhang, 2023; Huang & Li, 2022). Furthermore, it provides new insights and evidence for optimizing university entrepreneurship education models and enhancing their practical effectiveness.

Literature Review and Hypothesis

Social Cognitive Theory

Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) posits that human behavior is shaped by the dynamic interplay between personal factors, environmental factors, and behavioral patterns (Bandura, 1986). In the context of entrepreneurship research, SCT provides a robust framework for understanding how individual develops entrepreneurial intentions through observational learning, self-efficacy, and environmental interactions (Fang & Zhang, 2023). Specifically, entrepreneurship education, as an environmental factor, enhances students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy by providing knowledge, skills, and practical opportunities, thereby strengthening their entrepreneurial intentions (Huang & Li, 2022). Additionally, SCT emphasizes the importance of individual differences in shaping behavior. Personal factors, such as family background, may moderate the impact of environmental factors on behavioral outcomes (Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2023). Thus, SCT offers a solid theoretical foundation for this study to explore the impact of entrepreneurship education portfolios on entrepreneurial intentions and the moderating role of entrepreneurial family background.

Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship education is a critical tool for fostering entrepreneurial intentions, as it equips students with the knowledge, skills, and mindset necessary to pursue entrepreneurial opportunities (Brown & Mason, 2023). However, the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education depends not on a single element but on the synergistic effects of multiple components. Entrepreneurship education portfolios, including comprising teaching content, teacher guidance, entrepreneurship competition, and entrepreneurship practice, can significantly enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions through complementary effects (Kuratko & Morris, 2023). Specifically, teaching content helps students build a cognitive framework for entrepreneurship by imparting systematic knowledge (Anderson & Jack, 2022); teacher guidance boosts students’ entrepreneurial confidence through personalized feedback and support (Sun et al., 2024); entrepreneurship competition simulates real entrepreneurial environments, stimulating students’ competitive spirit, and innovative thinking (Chen, Zhang, & Liu, 2023); and entrepreneurship practice provides hands-on experience, enabling students to translate theoretical knowledge into practical skills (Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2023). Despite these advancements, existing research often focuses on individual elements, leaving a gap in the systematic exploration of the combined effects of entrepreneurship education portfolios. This gap provides a significant research opportunity for this study.

Entrepreneurial Family Background

Entrepreneurial family background is a significant contextual factor influencing individuals’ entrepreneurial intentions. Students from entrepreneurial families are often exposed to entrepreneurial activities from a young age, providing them with relevant knowledge, skills, and resources that facilitate the translation of entrepreneurship education into tangible entrepreneurial intentions (Chen, Zhang, & Liu, 2023). Such a background fosters greater receptiveness to and application of entrepreneurship education by offering role models and creating a supportive environment (Kim & Park, 2022). Additionally, an entrepreneurial family background not only directly influences entrepreneurial intentions but may also indirectly affect entrepreneurial behavior by moderating the pathways through which entrepreneurship education impacts students (Müller & Hensellek, 2023). These findings underscore the critical role of entrepreneurial family background in the mechanism through which entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial intentions, offering a solid theoretical foundation for incorporating entrepreneurial family background as a moderating variable in this study.

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis

Building on social cognitive theory and the literature reviewed above, this study proposes a theoretical framework to examine the impact of entrepreneurship education portfolios on undergraduate entrepreneurial intentions and the moderating role of entrepreneurial family background. The framework posits that entrepreneurship education portfolios positively influence entrepreneurial intentions by enhancing students’ knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy (Brown & Mason, 2023; Kuratko & Morris, 2023).

Teaching content forms the foundation of entrepreneurship education by providing students with the theoretical knowledge and conceptual frameworks necessary to understand entrepreneurship. Studies have consistently shown that well-designed curricula can significantly enhance students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions. Entrepreneurship courses positively influence students’ attitudes toward entrepreneurship, which in turn increases their entrepreneurial intentions (Fayolle et al., 2006). Entrepreneurship education literature concluded that teaching content is one of the most effective components in fostering entrepreneurial intentions (Smith & Johnson, 2024). By equipping students with knowledge about opportunity recognition, business planning, and risk management, teaching content helps them develop a cognitive framework that supports entrepreneurial behavior (Brown & Taylor, 2024).

Teacher guidance plays a pivotal role in translating theoretical knowledge into practical insights (Anderson & Lee, 2023; Martinez & Carter, 2024). Effective mentorship and personalized feedback from instructors play a crucial role in boosting students’ confidence and motivation to pursue entrepreneurial ventures. Teacher guidance positively impacts students’ entrepreneurial intentions by offering role models and mitigating perceived barriers to entrepreneurship (Nguyen & Lee, 2023). Correspondingly, students who receive mentorship from experienced entrepreneurs are more likely to develop strong entrepreneurial intentions (Zhang & Chen, 2024). These findings highlight the significant role that teacher guidance and mentorship play in entrepreneurship education, making them essential components of a comprehensive educational approach.

Entrepreneurship competitions offer students a valuable platform to apply theoretical knowledge in a practical, simulated business environment, helping to cultivate creativity, teamwork, and problem-solving abilities. Research has shown that participating in such competitions positively impacts students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Specifically, students who take part in entrepreneurship competitions demonstrate increased levels of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intentions compared to those who do not participate (Batz Liñeiro et al., 2024). These competitions expose students to real-world entrepreneurial challenges, enhancing their readiness to pursue entrepreneurial ventures (Zhang & Yang, 2024). This evidence highlights the importance of entrepreneurship competitions as an essential component of entrepreneurship education programs (Pilar & Tejedor Miralles, 2023).

Entrepreneurship practice, which includes internships, start-up projects, and other hands-on experiences, bridges the gap between theory and practice. By engaging in real-world entrepreneurial activities, students gain practical skills and a deeper understanding of the entrepreneurial process. Students who participate in entrepreneurship practice report higher levels of entrepreneurial intentions and are more likely to start their own businesses (Wang & Liu, 2022). Experiential learning activities, such as business simulations and start-up projects, significantly enhance students’ entrepreneurial intentions by providing them with a sense of accomplishment and confidence (Sofiullah et al., 2023). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1: Entrepreneurship education portfolio influences undergraduates’ entrepreneurial intentions positively.

Simultaneously, entrepreneurial family background may amplify this effect by providing additional resources, role models, and a supportive environment (Fang & Zhang, 2023; Obschonka & Stuetzer, 2023). Entrepreneurial family background can influence a student’s entrepreneurial intentions by providing them with early exposure to entrepreneurship. Individuals from entrepreneurial families tend to have higher entrepreneurial intentions and are more likely to start their own businesses (Martins et al., 2023). These students often have role models and mentors within their family who provide both practical knowledge and emotional support, increasing their readiness to pursue entrepreneurial careers (Cheng & Li, 2022). They might feel more confident and motivated to pursue entrepreneurship due to the supportive family environment, which could enhance the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education (Zhang et al., 2022). Conversely, students without an entrepreneurial family background might not benefit from the same level of external support or encouragement, making them less likely to act on the education they receive (Chen & Liu, 2021). Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2: Entrepreneurial family background moderates the relationship between entrepreneurship education portfolio and entrepreneurial intention among undergraduates.

Figure 1 is the depiction of the construct relationships in our conceptual model.

Figure 1.

The conceptual model.

Methodology

Data Collection and Demographic Profile

Accurate and sufficient empirical data are required to test these two research hypotheses. A questionnaire survey was conducted to collect the necessary data for this study, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1: strongly disagree” to “5: strongly agree” to assess university students from various regions of China. The participant selection criteria focused on two key aspects: (1) undergraduate students and (2) those who had received relevant entrepreneurship education courses. Additionally, to mitigate discrepancies caused by unbalanced economic development, this study surveyed students from 12 finance and economics colleges and universities across different regions of China. These 12 universities are Ningbo Institute of Finance and Economics, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Anhui University of Finance and Economics, Xi’an University of Finance and Economics, Guangxi University of Finance and Economics, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Lanzhou University of Finance and Economics, Nanjing University of Finance and Economics, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, and Central University of Finance and Economics. A total of 4,587 questionnaires were distributed online (via https://www.wjx.cn) to students by the colleges at the aforementioned universities. Prior to participation, all respondents were provided with a written informed consent statement at the beginning of the questionnaire, clearly explaining the purpose, nature, and voluntary nature of the study to ensure that they fully understood the research before proceeding. After excluding incomplete and irregular responses, a total of 2,386 valid questionnaires were collected, yielding a response rate of 52.02%. Students who completed the questionnaire were rewarded with extra credit. The survey results indicated that 20% of respondents had on-campus entrepreneurial experience, 66.6% had access to a business incubator, and 68.65% had received entrepreneurship education. Table 1 summarizes the demographic data of the survey respondents.

Table 1.

Descriptive Analysis.

Variables	Description	Number of respondents	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	760	31.90
Gender	Female	1,626	68.10
Academic performance	Top 25%	895	37.50
	Upper middle 25%	841	35.20
	Lower middle 25%	489	20.50
	Post 25%	161	6.70
In-school entrepreneurial experience	Yes	478	20.00
In-school entrepreneurial experience	No	1,908	80.00
College student business park	Yes	1,588	66.60
	No	323	13.50
	No idea	475	19.90
Entrepreneurship-related courses received	Yes	1,638	68.65
Entrepreneurship-related courses received	No	748	31.35
Entrepreneurial family background	Yes	543	22.70
Entrepreneurial family background	No	1,843	77.30
			N = 2,386

Measurement Instruments and Questionnaire Development

Questionnaire utilized in this investigation was produced and verified in the English language. De-translation was employed by Brislin (1980) in order to convert metrics to Chinese from English. In order to ascertain measurement precision, multiple authors conducted exhaustive comparisons and translations of the scales from Chinese to English. The entrepreneurship education portfolio’s measurement items were created using Huang and Huang’s (2019) research. The items for measuring students’ entrepreneurial intent were based on the research of Li et al. (2020) and Lee and Herrmann (2021; Table A1, See Appendix 1).

Data Analysis

Following the work of Li et al. (2020) and Wang et al. (2023), we consider the approach of partial least square based structure equation model (PLS-SEM) due to the advantage of processing multiple independent variables at the same time, allowing us to overcome the constraints of multicollinearity between independent variables in the analysis of retrieved empirical data. The PLS method effectively tests the exploratory theory (Henseler et al., 2009), which does not require a normal data distribution and is suitable for small sample sizes compared to SEM based on variance-covariance (Fornell & Bookstein, 1982).

Empirical informed were analyzed utilizing confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation models (SEM), with partial least squares (PLS) path models being the predominant approach. Mean variation extraction (AVE), composite reliability (CR), and Cronbach’s alpha were utilized to assess significance, factor loading values, and convergence validity. The validity of discrimination is evaluated using two criteria: the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio and the AVE of each idea being greater than its squared correlation with other ideas (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The bootstrapping technique was employed to validate the proposed research model and assess the interrelationships among all variables. Ultimately, the regulatory impact of culture is scrutinized through the implementation of multi-group analysis (MGA), with an initial examination of measurement invariance (MICOM).

Results

The Measurement Model: Reliability and Validity Assessments

When adopting the methodologies of other studies, it is imperative to take into account prevalent methodological fallacies (Alegre & Chiva, 2013; Ifinedo, 2011). Version 26 of SPSS was initially utilized to conduct the Harman experiments. The explanatory variance of the initial factor is calculated when the sum of all variables is less than 50% and there is no measurement error in the analysis. The eigenvalues of the first factor explain 41.569% of the variance in this research, which is below the threshold of 50% (Table 2). This suggests that the study is free from standard method bias.

Table 2.

Common Method Bias Test.

Total	% of variance	Cumulative %
4.805	41.569	41.569

Regarding the content validity of the scales suggested in this article, each scale was constructed in consultation with pertinent scholarly works in order to ascertain the content validity of the measuring instrument (Cronbach, 1971). In addition, Boateng et al. (2018) suggest that the expert-advised scale constitutes a methodology. To further ensure the content validity of the measurement instrument, the scale utilized in this article was further discussed with professional experts regarding the core content of entrepreneurship education. We consider several options for students after graduation in light of their entrepreneurial intentions. Regarding family entrepreneurship, we consider whether the family members have prior entrepreneurial experience.

As stated previously, the convergence validity of the study model was evaluated according to the following criteria: (a) the factor load must exceed .5; (b) the CR value must exceed .6; and (c) the AVE value must exceed .5 (Chan et al., 2018; Chin, 1998; Yang & Su, 2017). Moreover, when employing Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency reliability of a scale, a threshold of .6 is deemed minimally acceptable (Cronbach, 1951; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Yang & Su, 2017). The fact that the burden for each factor is greater than .5 and the AVE value is also greater than .5, as shown in Table 3, indicates that the convergence effect of the research model is favorable. Both Cronbach’s alpha and CR values exceeded .6 and .8, respectively, signifying that the internal consistency of the study model was attainable.

Table 3.

Factor Loading, Cronbach’s alpha, CR, AVE of Constructs.

Construct	Item	Factor loading	Cronbach’s alpha	CR	AVE
EEP	TC1	.767	.956	.962	.697
	TC2	.899
	TC3	.911
	TG1	.897
	TG2	.885
	TG3	.842
	EC1	.900
	EC2	.896
	EC3	.818
	EP1	.832
	EP2	.830
SEI	SEI1	.835	.806	.885	.720
	SEI2	.899
	SEI3	.898

Discriminant validity testing requires that each factor correspond to an individual dimension (Gómez-Ramirez et al., 2019). The correlation coefficient between the square root value of AVE and the latent configuration is used for comparison, and the square root value of AVE must be greater than the value of all potential configurations, according to Fornell and Larcker (1981). The correlation coefficient is calculated rather than the square root of AVE. According to Table 4, the square root values for all AVEs are greater than those for all potential ideas. Furthermore, all single-trait-to-monotrait ratios are less than one. Because all of the ideas in this study have been tested for validity and reliability, these two results show that the discriminant validity of the measurements is good, and the scale of this study is valid and reliable.

Table 4.

Fornell–Larcker Criterion.

Construct	EEP	SEI
EEP	.835
SEI	.830	.849

The Structural Model

To evaluate the predictive capability of the structural model, the R² value of each study model configuration and the value of the Stone–Geisser prediction correlation test (Q²; Geisser, 1975) were utilized. Falk and Miller (1992) suggested that R² should exceed .1, and Henseler et al. (2009) established Q² values of .02, .15, and .35, which, respectively, correspond to minor, medium, and large effects. The R² value of this study model is .689, and the Q² value is .491, as shown in Figure 2, indicating that the structural model proposed in this article is well-fitted and has strong predictive ability. Simultaneously, Figure 2 depicts the hypothetical results of using bootstrapping.

Figure 2.

The structural model.

Table 5 displays the validation results for the variables and puts the research hypotheses to the test. The findings were widely accepted. Entrepreneurship education practice accounted for 83% of students’ entrepreneurial intentions based on the R² value between structures.

Table 5.

The t-Value of Research Hypotheses and Path Coefficients.

No.	Research hypotheses	t-Value	Path coefficients	p-Value	Validated result
H1	Entrepreneurship education practice positively impacts students’ entrepreneurial intention	133.654	.830	.000***	Supported

***

p < .01.

Multi-Group Analysis for Entrepreneurial Family Background

To investigate the moderating effect of family entrepreneurship background in the model, we divided the survey participants into entrepreneurial and non-entrepreneurial experiences based on whether relatives had entrepreneurial experience. The impact of family entrepreneurship background variables on students’ entrepreneurial intentions was discussed using relatives’ entrepreneurial experience as a binary variable, and the entrepreneurial intentions of students from various entrepreneurial family backgrounds were comprehended. Prior to examining the relationship between configurations, it is necessary to validate the hypothesis of measuring invariance for these two samples, which are drawn from different populations and have different characteristics (Sinkovics et al., 2016; Tarhini et al., 2015). This eliminates the possibility that the observed differences are the result of measurement model errors (Rialp-Criado, 2018). Consequently, in order to validate the measurement invariance suggested by Carranza et al. (2020), the composite model’s measurement invariance (MICOM) is established. MICOM is also capable of analyzing scalar invariance, composition invariance, and configuration invariance (equivalence of composite mean and variance; Sinkovics et al., 2016). Table 6 displays the results of configurational and compositional invariance, which demonstrate the measuring instrument’s partial invariance because the equality of the combinatorial means is not verified. The moderating effect of entrepreneurial family background on students’ entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention, on the other hand, can be assessed (Lee et al., 2021). MGA is necessary for evaluating the conditioning effect in light of this information (Sinkovics et al., 2016).

Table 6.

Configural Invariance and Compositional Invariance.

Factor	Configural invariance	Compositional invariance			Measurement invariance
Factor	Configural invariance	Original correlation	Permutation p-values	Compositional invariance?	Measurement invariance
EEP	Yes	1.000	.936	Yes	Partial
SEI	Yes	1.000	.122	Yes	Partial

The verification of the relationship between the hypothetical results of the further development of the background adjustment effect of household entrepreneurship is shown in Table 7. MGA findings generally support H2 (moderating effect of entrepreneurial family background). The group path coefficient demonstrated the difference between those with and without a family entrepreneurship background for the groups adjusted by family entrepreneurship background. In terms of EEP to SEI, Group 1’s pathway coefficient is .039 (β^Group1− β^Group2 = .039, p-value (Experience) = .003***) higher than Group 2’s, indicating that students from entrepreneurial families are more likely to be influenced by entrepreneurship education, resulting in entrepreneurial intention.

Table 7.

Causal Hypotheses Testing and Multi-Group Comparison Test Results for Culture.

No.	Path	Path coefficients			p-Value (experience)	Validated result
No.	Path	Experience	Group 1 (β^Yes)	Group 2 (β^No)	p-Value (experience)	Validated result
H1	EEP→SEI	.039	.859***	.820***	.003***	Supported

***

p < .01.

Discussion

This study explores the relationship between entrepreneurship education and the entrepreneurial intentions of Chinese undergraduates through empirical analysis, with a particular focus on the moderating role of entrepreneurial family background. The findings indicate that entrepreneurship education has a significant positive impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions, while entrepreneurial family background plays a crucial moderating role in this relationship.

Drawing on social cognitive theory, this study confirms the critical role of entrepreneurship education in shaping students’ entrepreneurial intentions. The results show that the four core components of entrepreneurship education have a significant positive impact on students’ entrepreneurial intentions. This finding aligns with the research of Santos et al. (2019) and Sarooghi et al. (2019), who also found that entrepreneurship education significantly enhances entrepreneurial intentions by improving students’ self-efficacy and perceived feasibility. Specifically, teaching content has the most significant influence, with a path coefficient of .767, followed by entrepreneurship practice (β = .832), teacher guidance (β = .897), and entrepreneurship competition (β = .900). This study further validates the importance of entrepreneurship education in fostering students’ entrepreneurial mindset and stimulating their entrepreneurial willingness (I. Anwar & Saleem, 2019; D. Boldureanu et al., 2020; Zhang & Chen, 2024).

However, not all studies agree on the positive relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. For example, Oosterbeek et al. (2010) found that entrepreneurship education had little to no effect on students’ entrepreneurial intentions in their study of Dutch students. They argued that the lack of practical application and real-world relevance in the curriculum might explain this discrepancy. Similarly, Von Graevenitz et al. (2010) suggested that the impact of entrepreneurship education depends heavily on the quality of the program and the students’ prior exposure to entrepreneurial activities. These studies highlight the importance of contextual factors, such as curriculum design and students’ backgrounds, in determining the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education.

Additionally, the study finds that entrepreneurial family background significantly moderates the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions. Students from entrepreneurial families show a greater increase in entrepreneurial intentions (β = .859) after receiving entrepreneurship education compared to their peers from non-entrepreneurial families (β = .820), with the difference being statistically significant (p = .003). This result supports the findings of Kristova and Malach (2017), indicating that entrepreneurial family background enhances the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education by providing rich entrepreneurial experience, resources, and psychological support.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions among Chinese undergraduates, with a particular focus on the moderating role of family entrepreneurial background. By controlling for this variable, the research offers theoretical insights into how external factors influence the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education and provides practical guidance for designing targeted educational policies and curriculum strategies. Through a detailed examination of entrepreneurship education’s core components, including the teaching content, teacher guidance, entrepreneurship competition, and entrepreneurship practice, the study moves beyond treating entrepreneurship education as a broad, undifferentiated concept. This granular perspective, framed by social cognitive theory, emphasizes the importance of a well-structured and multi-faceted educational approach that mirrors real-world entrepreneurial dynamics. This contribution is particularly relevant in the Chinese socio-economic context, where entrepreneurship is increasingly promoted as a driver of innovation and economic growth.

Another significant contribution lies in the exploration of the interaction between family entrepreneurial background and educational programs. The study highlights that students with entrepreneurial family histories are more likely to develop entrepreneurial intentions due to their prior exposure to entrepreneurial resources and experiences (Kristova & Malach, 2017). This finding underscores the critical role of both educational and familial contexts in shaping entrepreneurial aspirations and suggests that entrepreneurship education is not experienced uniformly across student populations. Students from entrepreneurial families benefit from an existing knowledge base and support system, which strengthens their ability to translate educational experiences into entrepreneurial motivations. In contrast, those without such backgrounds may require additional resources and targeted interventions to foster similar outcomes. This insight calls for a more personalized and inclusive approach to entrepreneurship education that acknowledges and accommodates the diverse socio-cultural contexts of learners. By integrating these dimensions, educators can design more effective programs that support the development of entrepreneurial intentions across a broader and more diverse student body.

The study also offers important practical implications for multiple stakeholders, including higher education institutions, policymakers, educators, and industry partners. For higher education institutions, the findings highlight the need to design comprehensive and differentiated entrepreneurship curricula that combine theoretical knowledge with practical experience. Universities should develop personalized learning pathways that address the varying needs of students with and without entrepreneurial family backgrounds. For instance, students with prior exposure could benefit from advanced, practice-oriented modules, while others may require foundational courses and additional mentorship to bridge the experiential gap. Furthermore, interdisciplinary collaboration across academic departments can foster a broader set of entrepreneurial competencies, preparing students to navigate complex and dynamic entrepreneurial ecosystems. For policymakers, the study suggests the importance of supporting educational innovation through policies that encourage flexible, experiential, and context-specific entrepreneurship programs. Providing financial incentives for underrepresented groups and establishing public-private partnerships can ensure equitable access to high-quality entrepreneurship education. Policymakers should also implement mechanisms to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of these programs, ensuring that educational strategies evolve in response to socio-economic changes.

Educators, as direct facilitators of entrepreneurship education, can apply these insights by adopting holistic teaching approaches that integrate theoretical instruction with experiential learning. This includes incorporating practical experiences such as business simulations, entrepreneurship competitions, and industry-led projects that provide students with hands-on exposure to entrepreneurial processes. Differentiated teaching strategies, such as personalized case studies and modular learning formats, can further accommodate the diverse backgrounds and learning needs of students. Additionally, assessment methods should extend beyond traditional examinations to include project-based evaluations, business pitch competitions, and reflective practices that measure entrepreneurial competencies more comprehensively. Industry partners play a crucial role in bridging the gap between academic knowledge and real-world practice. Collaborating with universities to co-design curricula, offer mentorship, and provide early-stage funding for student ventures can enhance the practical relevance and impact of entrepreneurship education. Industry professionals can also contribute to knowledge transfer by participating in academic programs as guest speakers and mentors, sharing their insights into emerging entrepreneurial challenges and market demands.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has several limitations that should be considered. First, it primarily focuses on Chinese undergraduates, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to students in other cultural or economic contexts. The impact of entrepreneurship education is likely to vary across countries with different entrepreneurial climates, educational structures, and economic conditions. Future studies could examine these variables in diverse regions to better understand how contextual factors shape entrepreneurial outcomes.

Second, the study concentrates on family entrepreneurial background as a moderating factor, primarily focusing on immediate family members. However, other influential factors, such as mentorship from non-family members, peer influence, or broader social networks, may also play a significant role in shaping students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Future research could broaden the scope of social influences to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the factors that impact entrepreneurial aspirations.

Finally, while this study dissects entrepreneurship education into core components like teaching content, guidance, competitions, and entrepreneurship practice, it may not fully capture the complexity of entrepreneurship education. Important factors such as mentorship, entrepreneurial mindset development, and networking opportunities were not considered in this analysis. Future studies could refine the model by incorporating these additional dimensions to offer a more holistic view of how entrepreneurship education influences entrepreneurial intentions.

Footnotes

Throughout the writing of this dissertation I have received a great deal of support and assistance. I would first like to thank my supervisor,Xiayu Tong,whose expertise was invaluable in formulating the research questions and methodology. Your insightful feedback pushed me to sharpen my thinking and brought my work to a higher level. I would also like to thank my tutors,Kai Wang,for their valuable guidance throughout my studies. You provided me with the tools that I needed to choose the right direction and successfully.

ORCID iDs

Xueqi Cai

Kai Wang

Ethical Considerations

This article does not contain any research involving humans or animals. The Ethics Committee of the Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics waived the need for ethics approval and patient consent for the collection,analysis,and publication of the retrospectively obtained and anonymized data for this non-interventional study.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This research is partially supported by the Humanities and Social Science Foundation of Ministry of Education of China under Grants 24YJC630203 and 18YJA880076,and Major Humanities and Social Science Research Projects in Zhejiang Universities (Grant No. 2024GH043).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

References

Alegre

Chiva

(2013). Linking entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance: The role of organizational learning capability and innovation performance. Small Business Management, 51(4), 491–507.

Anderson

A. R.

Jack

S. L.

(2022). The role of instructor guidance in fostering entrepreneurial intention: A social capital perspective. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 34(1–2), 45–62.

Anderson

R. T.

Lee

S. H.

(2023). The role of teacher guidance in bridging the gap between theory and practice in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(3), 456–472.

Anwar

Saleem

(2019). Exploring entrepreneurial characteristics among university students: A evidence from India. Asia Pacific Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(3), 282–295.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.

Batz Liñeiro

Romero Ochoa

J. A.

Montes de la Barrera

(2024). Exploring entrepreneurial intentions and motivations: A comparative analysis of opportunity-driven and necessity-driven entrepreneurs. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), Article 11.

Boateng

G. O.

Neilands

T. B.

Frongillo

E. A.

Melgar-Quiñonez

H. R.

Young

S. L.

(2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 149.

Boldureanu

Dinu

Udrea

(2020). Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurship intentions, and the role of family background in shaping entrepreneurial behavior. Studies in Business and Economics, 15(1), 14–22.

Brislin

R. W.

(1980). Introduction to social psychology. In Pandey

Berry

J. W.

Poortinga

Y. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1–23). Allyn and Bacon.

10.

Brown

R. K.

Taylor

E. L.

(2024). The role of teaching content in entrepreneurship education: A meta-analysis of its impact on entrepreneurial intentions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 48(2), 234–250.

11.

Brown

Mason

(2023). The impact of entrepreneurial curriculum design on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. Journal of Small Business Management, 61(1), 123–145.

12.

Cai

Liu

Deng

(2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention: The role of entrepreneurial ecosystem. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 11(2), 250–270.

13.

Carranza

Dhir

Sotiropoulos

(2020). Measurement invariance in cross-cultural studies: A review and empirical illustration. Journal of International Business Studies, 51(5), 785–810.

14.

Chan

M. M.

Plata

R. B.

Medina

J. A.

Alario-Hoyos

Rizzardini

R. H.

de la Roca

(2018). Analysis of behavioral intention to use cloud-based tools in a MOOC: A technology acceptance model approach. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(8), 1072–1089.

15.

Chen

Wang

Liu

(2023). Regional entrepreneurial ecosystems and the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(4), 567–582.

16.

Chen

Zhang

Liu

(2023). The role of family background in shaping entrepreneurial intentions: Evidence from Chinese students. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(4), 731–747.

17.

Chen

Liu

(2021). Entrepreneurship education and its impact on entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate students: The moderating role of family influence. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 6(3), 144–152.

18.

Cheng

(2022). The effect of family background on students’ entrepreneurial intentions: A moderating analysis. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 25(4), 487–502.

19.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.

20.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1971). Test validation. In Thorndike

(Ed.), Educational measurement (pp. 443–507). American Council on Education.

21.

Cronbach

L. J.

(1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

22.

Cui

Sun

(2023). The impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention: A meta-analysis. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 26(1), 1–20.

23.

Falk

R. F.

Miller

N. B.

(1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press.

24.

Fang

Zhang

(2023). The role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in moderating the impact of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Career Development, 50(2), 234–250.

25.

Fayolle

Gailly

Lassas-Clerc

(2006). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education programmes: A new methodology. Journal of European Industrial Training, 30(9), 701–720.

26.

Fornell

Bookstein

F. L.

(1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.

27.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

28.

Geisser

(1975). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101–107.

29.

Gómez-Ramirez

Valencia-Arias

Duque

(2019). Approach to M-learning acceptance among university students: An integrated model of TPB and TAM. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3), 142–164.

30.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

(2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In Sinkovics

R. R.

Ghauri

P. N.

(Eds.), New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277–319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

31.

Huang

(2022). The role of entrepreneurial mindset in mediating the relationship between entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 14(3), 456–472.

32.

Huang

Z. X.

Huang

Y. J.

(2019). The quality evaluation of innovation and entrepreneurship education—An empirical study from 1231 colleges and universities in China. Educational Research, 40(7), 91–101.

33.

Ifinedo

(2011). Internet/e-business technologies acceptance in Canada’s SMEs: An exploratory investigation. Internet Research, 21(3), 255–281.

34.

Kim

Park

(2022). The influence of family background on entrepreneurial intentions: A study of South Korean students. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 34(6), 912–931.

35.

Kristova

Malach

(2017). Family background and entrepreneurship education: The moderating effect of family entrepreneurial history. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 8(3), 128–137.

36.

Kuratko

D. F.

Morris

M. H.

(2023). Entrepreneurial competitions and their impact on entrepreneurial intention: A global perspective. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 13(1), 1–25.

37.

Lee

Herrmann

(2021). Entrepreneurial passion: A systematic review and research opportunities. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 31, 122–147.

38.

Lee

Cortes

A. F.

Joo

(2021). Entrepreneurship education and founding passion: The moderating role of entrepreneurial family background. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 743672.

39.

Murad

Shahzad

Khan

M. A. S.

Ashraf

S. F.

Dogbe

C. S. K.

(2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior: Role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1611.

40.

Chen

Zhang

(2021). A systematic review of entrepreneurial education research: Current status and future directions. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 24(3), 1–20.

41.

Liu

Chen

Wang

(2023). Multidimensional effects of entrepreneurial education portfolios: A configurational perspective. Nankai Business Review, 26(2), 123–135.

42.

Martinez

P. L.

Carter

E. R.

(2024). Mentorship matters: How teacher guidance enhances entrepreneurial learning outcomes. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 23(1), 89–105.

43.

Martins

J. M.

Shahzad

M. F.

(2023). Factors influencing entrepreneurial intention to initiate new ventures: Evidence from university students. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 63.

44.

Müller

Hensellek

(2023). Family background and entrepreneurial intentions: A mediating role of entrepreneurial education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 29(1), 45–65.

45.

Nabi

Liñán

Fayolle

Krueger

Walmsley

(2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299.

46.

Nguyen

T. T.

Lee

(2023). Enhancing entrepreneurial intentions through instructor feedback: A study in Southeast Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 43(2), 123–137.

47.

Nunnally

J. C.

Bernstein

I. H.

(1994). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.

48.

Obschonka

Stuetzer

(2023). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and the role of individual agency: A psychological perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 47(1), 89–112.

49.

Obschonka

Silbereisen

R. K.

Schmitt-Rodermund

(2015). Entrepreneurial intention as developmental outcome. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 87, 1–11.

50.

Oosterbeek

van Praag

Ijsselstein

(2010). The impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurship skills and motivation. European Economic Review, 54(3), 442–454.

51.

Pilar

Tejedor Miralles

(2023). Impact of the sense of initiative and entrepreneurship competence on entrepreneurial intentions. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 19(3), 2515–2539.

52.

Rialp-Criado

(2018). Examining the impact of managerial involvement with social media on exporting firm performance. International Business Review, 27(2), 355–366.

53.

Santos

S. C.

Neumeyer

Morris

M. H.

(2019). Entrepreneurship education in a poverty context: An empowerment perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(Supp 1), 6–32.

54.

Sarooghi

Sunny

Hornsby

Fernhaber

(2019). Design thinking and entrepreneurship education: Where are we, and what are the possibilities? Journal of Small Business Management, 57(Supp 1), 78–93.

55.

Sinkovics

R. R.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

(2016). Testing measurement invariance of composites using partial least squares. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 405–431.

56.

Smith

J. A.

Johnson

L. M.

(2024). The impact of curriculum design on entrepreneurial intentions: A comparative study of teaching content and experiential learning. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 27(1), 45–62.

57.

Sofiullah

Gomes Vale

Darr

(2023). Effectiveness of an interactive start-up simulation to foster entrepreneurial intentions among undergraduate university students: a quasi-experimental study. Entrepreneurship Education, 6(4), 445–467.

58.

Sun

Zhang

(2024). The interplay between entrepreneurial family background and psychological capital in shaping entrepreneurial intention. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 48(1), 89–112.

59.

Tarhini

Hone

Liu

(2015). A cross-cultural examination of the impact of social, organisational and individual factors on educational technology acceptance between British and Lebanese university students. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 739–755.

60.

Von Graevenitz

Harhoff

Weber

(2010). The effects of entrepreneurship education. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 76(1), 90–112.

61.

Wang

Hemmen

S. F.

Criado

J. R.

(2023). “Play” or “Labour,” the perception of university teachers towards MOOCs: Moderating role of culture. Education and Information Technologies, 28(7), 7737–7762.

62.

Wang

Liu

(2022). The impact of entrepreneurial practice on students’ business start-up intentions: A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Venturing, 37(4), 1234–1247.

63.

Wang

Zhang

(2022). The nonlinear impact of entrepreneurial education portfolios on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Journal of Management, 15(4), 567–579.

64.

Yang

H. H.

C. H.

(2017). Learner behaviour in a MOOC practice-oriented course: In empirical study integrating TAM and TPB. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5), 35–63.

65.

Zhang

H. X.

Chen

(2024). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention among tourism and hotel management students: The mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and the moderating role of grit. Sage Open, 14(2), Article 21582440241.

66.

Zhang

Yang

(2024). The impact of innovation and entrepreneurship competition participation on students’ leadership development. Journal of Leadership Education, 23(2), 101103.

67.

Zhang

Wang

(2020). Entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention: Evidence from Chinese universities. Journal of Small Business Management, 58(1), 1–20.

68.

Zhang

(2023). The impact of entrepreneurial curriculum design on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. Journal of Business Research, 145, 123–135.

69.

Zhang

Wang

(2022). The role of entrepreneurial family background in entrepreneurship education: Moderating effects and path analysis. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 54(3), 321–335.

70.

Zhou

Shahzad

(2021). Does college education promote entrepreneurship education in China? Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211031616.

Entrepreneurial Family Background as a Moderator of Entrepreneurship Education Portfolio and Entrepreneurial Intentions of Students

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review and Hypothesis

Social Cognitive Theory

Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurial Family Background

Theoretical Framework and Hypothesis

Methodology

Data Collection and Demographic Profile

Measurement Instruments and Questionnaire Development

Data Analysis

Results

The Measurement Model: Reliability and Validity Assessments

The Structural Model

Multi-Group Analysis for Entrepreneurial Family Background

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations and Future Research Directions

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References