Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use of A Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of Generation Z

sustainability
Article
Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use
of a Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of
Generation Z
Kristaps Lesinskis 1, * , Inese Mavlutova 2 , Aivars Spilbergs 2 and Janis Hermanis 2
1 Department of Management, BA School of Business and Finance, 1013 Riga, Latvia

2 Department of Economics and Finance, BA School of Business and Finance, 1013 Riga, Latvia;
inese.mavlutova@ba.lv (I.M.); aivars.spilbergs@ba.lv (A.S.); janis.hermanis@ba.lv (J.H.)
* Correspondence: kristaps.lesinskis@ba.lv; Tel.: +371-29722195
Abstract: This paper aims to investigate the impact of using the business planning digital tool
KABADA in a study process on entrepreneurial intentions in Generation Z, based on the study
conducted in selected Central and Eastern European countries and Southern European countries. The
authors developed a literature review on digital transformation and digital tools in entrepreneurship
education and their role in increasing entrepreneurial intentions in the context of sustainability. In
the empirical part, the authors conducted a quasi-experiment, tested the digital entrepreneurship
education tool KABADA among students with the analysis of sequentially obtained statistical data,
using descriptive statistics, statistical tests of eight hypotheses, as well as the effect size test. The
study reveals a mostly positive effect of the digital tool KABADA on the entrepreneurial intention of
Generation Z, thus confirming the effectiveness of digitalization-based entrepreneurial education
in promoting entrepreneurial intention. However, this effect is not statistically significant for some
components forming intention, as proven by hypothesis testing. The study contributes to the role
Citation: Lesinskis, K.; Mavlutova, I.; of the digital transformation of entrepreneurial education and the use of digital tools with built-
Spilbergs, A.; Hermanis, J. Digital in artificial intelligence algorithms in improving the effectiveness of education in terms of raising
Transformation in Entrepreneurship
entrepreneurial intentions.
Education: The Use of a Digital Tool
KABADA and Entrepreneurial
Keywords: digital transformation; sustainability; digital tools; entrepreneurship education; entrepreneurial
Intention of Generation Z.
intention; Generation Z; business planning; artificial intelligence
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10135.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151310135
Academic Editors: Nikolaos 1. Introduction

Apostolopoulos, Andreas Walmsley,
The implementation of the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
Christopher Moon and Yang
increases investment in the education system to create and sustain a culture of innovation.
(Jack) Lu
Within its framework, entrepreneurship education has been and will continue to be in
Received: 17 April 2023 the process of digital transformation. The arrival of new digital technologies makes it
Revised: 16 June 2023 possible to significantly transform the educational process. Educational institutions play an
Accepted: 21 June 2023 important role in the formation of new entrepreneurs, trying to increase the entrepreneurial
Published: 26 June 2023 intention (EI) of the students. The emergence of Generation Z in the education system
promotes the use of various digital tools in the educational process.
Goal 4 of the UN SDGs envisages a significant increase in the number of youth and
adults who, by 2030, will have the appropriate skills, including technical and vocational
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
skills, for employment, decent jobs and entrepreneurship [1]. Within this framework,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
the European Union (EU) has adopted the Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027), a
distributed under the terms and
renewed EU policy initiative that sets out a common vision of high-quality, inclusive and
conditions of the Creative Commons accessible digital education in Europe, and aims to support the adaptation of the education
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and training systems of Member States to the digital age [2].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Appropriate use of information and communications technology (ICT) is necessary
4.0/). for promoting educational practices that contribute to sustainable development. The study
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310135 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10135 2 of 20
adds to existing theories and practices related to the use of ICT and artificial intelligence (AI)
in entrepreneurship education and sustainability [3]. Digital transformation in scientific
research is usually related to the complexity of adapting digital technologies and has mostly
been studied as a process that takes place in different sectors, e.g., in finance, mechanical
engineering, but it is not learned enough in higher education. According to research, most
universities still lack a strategy related to digital transformation in the educational process,
including business education [4]. Alenezi [5] believes that digital transformation has gained
momentum and contemporary higher education institutions (HEI) have been embracing
new technologies and transforming their practices, business models and processes.
Research in the field of EE has a growing trend. Sreenivasan and Suresh [6] have
identified 2185 research publications in prominent journals in this field. The most pop-
ular topics developed from the co-occurrence network are the Determinants of Student
Entrepreneurial Intentions in Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurship in the Class-
room, and Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education. EE is studied by Kuratko [7],
Pittaway and Cope [8], Fayolle and Gailly [9], Lackéus [10], among others.
Research devoted to the EE effect on EI reveals controversial outcomes. Asimakopou-
los et al. [11], Cera et al. [12], Iwu et al. [13], Wang et al. [14] and others find a posi-
tive impact from EE on EI, while Reissova et al. [15], Draksler and Sirec [16], Martínez-
Gregorio et al. [17] do not agree or even find a negative effect of EE on EI.
Armitage, Conner and Mason [18,19] believe that behavioral performance deter-
mines students’ intention to engage in it, including the fact that it is also applicable
to entrepreneurship.
The study of Ashari et al. [20] aims to apply the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to
analyze the effect of an entrepreneurship course on EI of the engineering students and states
that entrepreneurship behavior can’t be inculcated by traditional entrepreneurship courses.
As remote learning practice is spreading in higher education (HI), AI is increasingly
playing a role in improving the online education process. Ouyang et al. [21] studied
434 articles on AI applications in online education, from 2011 to 2020, which led to the
suggestion of an empirical study to test the actual impact of AI applications on online
education in universities. The application of digital tools specifically in EE is recently
studied by Boissin, Sousa, Jardim, Cassol [22–25], and these studies reveal a gap within the
in-depth research of this issue. Therefore, this study analyzes whether the use of the digital
tool developed by the authors for EE workshop in the era of digital transformation (DT) is
effective and able to provide better results in terms of EI than traditional teaching.
The study is also dedicated to a specific age group, Generation Z, sometimes called
“digital natives”, who are currently entering higher education and is choosing a professional
career path. The main finding of the Generational Theory by Karl Manheim is that people
are greatly influenced by the socio-historical environment of their youth which is essential
in analyzing the characteristics and behavior of Generation Z [26].
Most scientists believe that Generation Z includes people born after 1995. However,
some researchers consider Generation Z as people born between 1997 and the second
decade of the 21st century. The third stream believes that Generation Z was born between
1996 and 2010 [27]. However, a consensus exists that virtual reality for the Generation Z has
become as real as the physical world in their lives, and they have not seen the world without
modern internet technologies. Generation Z views the world in a global perspective, they
have a tolerance to diversity thanks to the development of the Internet, social platforms
and digital opinion leaders [28]. Scholz and Rennig [29] indicate that despite the important
common characteristic of Generation Z relating the usage of IT tools, notable differences
can be found among representatives of Generation Z in different world regions, among
European countries, and even within a single country.
Unlike Generation X, which preceded Generation Z, this generation has several unique
characteristics: ability to understand and use the opportunities provided by both virtual
and real worlds, good skills in finding and disseminating information quickly (although
the quality of the information could often be a question), the use of social media in commu-
nication [30], multitasking skills, hardship with sorting information, expects immediate
satisfaction and presence from society [31]. These characteristics should be taken into
account considering teaching methods as they influence Generation Z learning strategies
and approach, making EE methods with use of digital tools more effective.
Regarding EI, it should be noted that Generation Z is cautious, hard-working and
wants to build a career in a stable environment [1].
Given the importance of digital transformation in sustainable development efforts, the
authors conducted a study with the purpose to investigate the effect of using the business
planning digital tool KABADA in EE workshops on the EI among students of Generation
Z from different European regions. KABADA is an abbreviation for Knowledge Alliance
of Business Idea Assessment: Digital Approach, and this tool was developed with the
support of the Erasmus+ project. Previous studies on EE have mostly been conducted in
one university or country or involving countries from one region [32,33]. The current study
includes a groups of students from Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (Latvia,
Lithuania, Czech Republic and Slovakia) and major Southern European (SE) countries (Italy,
Spain, Portugal) with different historical backgrounds, which allows for fully assessing the
effect of using a digital tool on students’ EI.
The paper consists of a literature review on the digital transformation of education, the
use of digital tools and artificial intelligence in EE, followed by the research methodology
and analysis of the results of the experiment conducted in CAE and SE universities, finalized
by a discussion, conclusions, the significance of the research and recommendations.
2. The Impact of Digital Transformation and Artificial Intelligence in

Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions of Generation Z
According to Vial [34] and Mirzagayeva and Aslanov [35], digital transformation is the
adoption of digital technology in various areas. Digital transformation is commonly defined
as the digitization of previously analogue machine and service operations, organizational
tasks and management processes [36]. The concept of digital transformation in scientific
literature and its role in sustainable development are not unambiguously explained, as it is a
rather complex issue. The research emphasizes that digital technologies themselves are only
one element in organization efforts to increase competitiveness in the digital world. Vial [34]
foregrounds digital transformation as a process in which digital technologies produce
positive and negative outcomes for organizations trying to manage structural change.
Holopainen et al. [37] examine the emergence of value creation during digital trans-
formation and conclude that value creation is determined by the extent to which the
organization manages to balance the existing value offer with digitalization. Digitalization
is closely related to sustainability. According to Ionescu-Feleagă et al. [38], digitalization
and sustainable development represent two very current topics, digitalization provides
new opportunities and challenges for the management of organizations and the execution
of their sustainable strategies, but relatively few studies exist that analyze the relationship
between these two topics. Ionescu-Feleagă et al. [38] analyzed the relationship between
digitalization and sustainable development in the EU countries between 2019 and 2021,
linking Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) and Sustainable Development Goal
Index (SDG Index), proving a positive and significant relationship between DESI and SDG
Index. According to Iannone [39], digitalization enables more efficiency because, through
process automation, it can optimize many steps in production processes, and since it offers
the possibility of constantly monitoring the measurement of the environmental impact, with
almost no margin of error, it provides valuable support for the organization in pursuing a
sustainable development.
Moreover, from a general economic perspective, digitalization may further increase the
demand for human capital, which has been shown to play a key role in modern economic
growth [40–43].
Due to the relevance of COVID-19 pandemic the number of studies of digital transfor-
mation in a higher education has substantially increased. Cruz-Cárdenas et al. [44] carried
out a bibliometric analysis of the titles DT and higher education, analyzed 643 articles in
Scopus and found an increase in research, especially in computer science, followed by
social science, engineering, as well as entrepreneurship and management.
Benavides et al. [45] indicate how HEI have been permeated by the technological
advancement that the Industrial Revolution 4.0 brings with it, and forces institutions to
deal with a digital transformation in all dimensions. According to Brdesee [46], with the
aim of achieving a global ranking and academic distinction, a large number of universi-
ties have decided to focus on competition and greater academic quality in which digital
transformation enables the use of electronic systems in the teaching process.
Research results by Rodríguez-Abitia and Bribiesca-Correa [47] show that universities
fall behind other sectors in their digital transformation processes, probably due to a lack
of effective leadership and changes in culture. This is complemented negatively by an
insufficient degree of innovation and financial support. Akour and Alenezi [48] note
that a significant number of educational stakeholders are concerned about the issue of
digitalization in higher educational institutions, indicating that digital skills are becoming
more pertinent throughout every context, particularly in the workplace. As a result,
one of the key purposes for universities has shifted to preparing future managers and
entrepreneurs, strengthening their information literacy as a vital set of skills.
Ratten and Usmanij [49] highlighted the current trends in EE by linking them to
emerging employment trends such as the gig economy and the digital transformation of
the workplace. In today’s EE, it is important to develop a digital entrepreneurship based
solely on the use of a digital platform.
As a result of an extensive literature analysis, five essential factors that determine the
implementation of digitalization in EE can be systematized (see Table 1).
Table 1. Substantial determinants of the adoption of digitalization in entrepreneurship education

based on literature reviews.
Determinants of the Adoption

The Authors of Publications and Information Sources
of Digitalization
Makowicz [50], Nicoli and Komodromos [51], Aasi and
Culture of education institutions
Rusu [52], Blau and Shamir-Inbal [53]
Mico and Cungu [54], Saranza et al. [55], Uerz et al. [56],
Competences of teachers
Petko et al. [57], Gudmundsdottir and Hatlevik [58], Van de
and students
Oudeweetering and Voogt [59]
Ala et al. [60], Griesbaum [61], Deming et al. [62], European
Industry expectations
Commission [63], Pucciarelli and Kaplan [64]
Arisoy [65], Cattaneo et al. [66], Frey and Osborne [67],
Competition in education
Souder et al. [68], Reitz [69], Pucciarelli and Kaplan [64]
Di Paola et al. [70], Kopylova [71], Deming et al. [62],
Cost savings and other benefits
Bulman and Fairlie [72], Griesbaum [61],
from adoption of digitalization
Henderson et al. [73], Navimipour and Soltani [74]
Source: compiled by the authors.
As Table 1 indicates, the main substantial determinants of the adoption of digitalization

in EE are related to both some internal and external environment factors like internal culture
and competences of teachers and students, cost savings as well as industry expectations
and competition in education.
Competences of teachers and students significantly influence the process of digital
transformation in higher education. Notwithstanding the huge advocacy of contemporary
competencies in education, digital competences are not sufficiently integrated into curricula
and teaching activities [75].
Students possess a different degree of their digital competences, and the improvements
of their digital skills vary significantly. The need to maintain and level student’ digital
competences should be evaluated [58].
Pucciarelli and Kaplan [64] believe a weak response to changes in business is a weak-
ness that threatens HE and its relevance is related to the use of ICT.
With digitalization in HE institutions, huge funding is spent on technology with the
aim to reduce costs and to improve educational outcomes [70,75]. Distance learning using
digital tools can be an important factor of cost reduction.
As availability of modern technologies increases, digital tools are increasingly involved
in the educational process [76].
The application of digital tools specifically in EE is recently studied by Garcez, Giuggi-
oli and Pellegrini, Hammoda, Wibowo and Narmaditya, Almeida, Heubeck [77–82]. Pires
and Fortes [83] believe that digital tools have a positive effect on increasing students’ EI,
Panoutsopoulos et al. [84] note considerable increase in interest for digital game-based
learning. Based on an assessment of the extent to which digital tools replicate the en-
trepreneurial experience in a science context, Blankesteijn et al. [85] offer solutions to
optimize the use of digital tools in EE.
AI solutions are rapidly entering the education sector. In the 1950s, interest in the
potential of automation emerged as it could help professionals to speed up their work by
helping them analyze, calculate, and process data. In the 1960s, many studies focused
on Bayesian statistics, a method used mainly in machine learning [81,86]. As education
technology evolves as a new standard, all the stakeholders involved in education must
deploy AI to obtain the basic education goals, i.e., it must be individualized, effective,
transformative, output based, integrative and long lasting [87].
The AI uses and combines machine learning (the usage of computer systems to
perform specific tasks efficiently without relying on clearly programmed instructions),
smart machines (devices that are embedded with machine networking and/or cognitive
computing technologies and able to make their own decisions without requiring human
contribution) and other data analysis techniques to achieve AI capabilities such as big data
analysis, is able to justify the situation (deductively and inductively) and draw conclusions
based on the situation; able to communicate in different languages; able to analyse and
solve complex problems [88]. The Figure 1 describes the components and characteristics of
an artificial intelligence.
As Figure 1 shows, for AI to perform its mission, specific software and hardware,
tools, applications and programming languages are required. Given the complexity and
aims of AI, it should be human centred, secure, monitorable and explainable, as well as
reproducible and unbiased.
AI based learning tools have been in existence and are being abundantly used in educa-
tion for quite a long time, however, now they affect students, teachers and all stakeholders
in the education space like never before [89]. Researchers hold the belief that AI based
intelligent tutoring system is going to rule the world of education [90,91]. Introduction of
AI in education is seen as a game changer where students will be provided with unimag-
inably more information that would have been possibly provided to them by a solitary
teacher [92].
Given the changes in technology, it is necessary to gradually transform the traditional
teaching mode into a new type of teaching that is more innovative, practical, inclusive and
in line with entrepreneurship education [93].
Personal characteristics and self-analysis shape entrepreneurial intent as well as em-
phasizes the relationship between career choice and entrepreneurial intent [94]. Kasler et al. [95]
found a strong relation between hope, grit and self-perceived employability.
Lim et al. [96] emphasizes the moderating role of self-efficacy in professional de-
velopment results. Lesinskis et al. [97], Davey et al. [98] write about differences among
representatives of Genaration Z in different global regions, countries, or even within a
single country, underlying that young people from developing countries are more willing
to engage in entrepreneurship than those from developed countries.
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 2023, 15,
15,10135
x FOR PEER REVIEW 66 of 21
of 20
Figure 1.
Figure 1. Components and characteristics
characteristics of
of artificial
artificial intelligence.
intelligence. Source:
Source: compiled by the authors.
authors.
Theory
Given the of changes
PlannedinBehaviour
technology, (TPB) is the most
it is necessary topopular
gradually model for understanding,
transform the traditional
predicting,
teaching mode andinto
changing individual
a new type socialthat
of teaching behaviour [99]. If an individual
is more innovative, evaluates
practical, inclusive anda
suggested behavior as positive (attitude),
in line with entrepreneurship education [93]. and if he or she believes significant others want
the person
Personalto perform the behavior
characteristics (subjective norm),
and self-analysis the intention to perform
shape entrepreneurial intent asthewellbehavior
as em-
will be greater and the individual will be more likely to perform
phasizes the relationship between career choice and entrepreneurial intent [94]. Kasler the behavior. Attitudes andet
subjective
al. [95] foundnorms are highly
a strong relationcorrelated
between with
hope,behavioral
grit and intention,
self-perceived and behavioral
employability.intention
is correlated
Lim et al. with
[96]actual behavior
emphasizes the[100]. According
moderating role toof Vamvaka
self-efficacy et al. [101], TPB looks
in professional at
devel-
entrepreneurship controlled and planned behaviour that is inherently
opment results. Lesinskis et al. [97], Davey et al. [98] write about differences among rep- intentional rather
than instinctive
resentatives where individuals
of Genaration acquire
Z in different entrepreneurial
global intentions
regions, countries, or over
even the timeabefore
within single
creation of ventures and making the decision on entry.
country, underlying that young people from developing countries are more willing to en-
gageAnalysing the entrepreneurial
in entrepreneurship than thoseintentions,
from developed the recent literature review leads to an ag-
countries.
gregation of studies related to TPB and reveals important
Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) is the most popular model constructs to look at in empirical
for understanding,
studies
predicting,to analyse entrepreneurial
and changing perceptions
individual [102]. Cheung
social behaviour [99]. [103]
If anbelieves
individualthatevaluates
it is impor- a
tant to facilitate entrepreneurial thinking in early stages of life to
suggested behavior as positive (attitude), and if he or she believes significant others want increase individual’s EI.
Summarizing
the person to performthetheresearch,
behavior the(subjective
effect of entrepreneurship
norm), the intention education
to perform onthe EI behav-
is still
controversial. Asimakopoulos et al. [11], Cera et al. [12], Iwu
ior will be greater and the individual will be more likely to perform the behavior. Atti- et al. [13], Wang et al. [14],
Pan et al. [104] findings indicate entrepreneurial education is positively associated with
tudes and subjective norms are highly correlated with behavioral intention, and behav-
the intention to undertake entrepreneurship. Akpoviroro et al. [105] find that there is
ioral intention is correlated with actual behavior [100]. According to Vamvaka et al. [101],
a significant relationship between the explanation of the role of the business model in
TPB looks at entrepreneurship controlled and planned behaviour that is inherently inten-
the UI study process and entrepreneurial intention. Carvalho et al. [106] and Wibowo
tional rather than instinctive where individuals acquire entrepreneurial intentions over
and Narmaditya [77] focuses their studies specifically on digital EE and concluded that
the time before creation of ventures and making the decision on entry.
it promotes students’ digital entrepreneurship intentions. On the contrary, studies of
Analysing the entrepreneurial intentions, the recent literature review leads to an ag-
Reissová et al. [15], Draksler and Sirec [16], Martínez-Gregorio et al. [17] question or limit
gregation of studies related to TPB and reveals important constructs to look at in empirical
the positive effect of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention.
studies to analyse entrepreneurial perceptions [102]. Cheung [103] believes that it is important
The object of the research is Generation Z students of various study levels from
to facilitate entrepreneurial thinking in early stages of life to increase individual’s EI.
different study directions.
of entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial intention.
The object of the research is Generation Z students of various study levels from dif-
ferent study directions.
Each generation is influenced by the social factors of its time, global development,
technology and demographics, and that each generation brings with it talents, individu-
ality and insights that can support society as a whole [107]. Differences in perceptions
between individuals of different generations with opposite worldviews are shaped by ex-
periences influenced by technology, as well as social and cultural expectations of certain
Each generation
populations born at theissameinfluenced
time. by the social factors of its time, global development,
technology and demographics, and that each
Generation Z, like other generations, generationby
is influenced brings with
various it talents,
events individuality
throughout their
and insights that can support society as a whole [107]. Differences in
lives, especially during their teenage years. it’s ae socio-economic and political forces perceptions between
of a
individualsphase
generation of different generations
can affect with intelligence
their actions, opposite worldviews
and generalarepersonality
shaped by traits,
experiences
mak-
influenced
ing by technology,
it different from previous as well as social and
generations. cultural
Knowing theexpectations of certain populations
general characteristics of Gener-
born at the same time.
ation Z is extremely important in order to be able to live with and adapt to them, to un-
derstandGeneration
motivesZ,andlikeinterpret
other generations,
relationships is influenced
[108]. by various events throughout their
lives, especially during their teenage years. it’s ae socio-economic and political forces of a
generation
3. Conceptual phase can affect and
Framework theirHypotheses
actions, intelligence and general personality traits, making
it different from previous generations. Knowing the general characteristics of Generation Z
Based onimportant
is extremely the literature review,
in order to bethe authors
able to livehave
withcreated the to
and adapt conceptual framework
them, to understand
of the research. Figure 2 shows the
motives and interpret relationships [108]. considered variables into a conceptual framework and
presents visually the hypothesised relationship between them.
The conceptual
3. Conceptual framework
Framework in Figure 2 predicts the influence of the independent var-
and Hypotheses
iable Based
(EE) ononthe
the literature review, the(EI
dependent variables and others),
authors assuming
have created the that the TPBframework
conceptual antecedents of
are casual factors (mediators), but the EE process is moderated
the research. Figure 2 shows the considered variables into a conceptual frameworkby two types of EE work-
and
shops—traditional
presents visually the workshop and workshop
hypothesised relationship which uses the
between digital tool KABADA.
them.
Figure 2.
Figure Conceptual framework
2. Conceptual framework of
of the
the research.
research.
The conceptual
Based framework
on the literature in Figure
analysis, 2 predictstwo
the following the main
influence of the independent
hypothesis vari-
and several sub-
able (EE) on the dependent
hypotheses are developed: variables (EI and others), assuming that the TPB antecedents are
casual factors (mediators), but the EE process is moderated by two types of EE workshops—
traditional workshop and workshop which uses the digital tool KABADA.
Based on the literature analysis, the following two main hypothesis and several sub-
hypotheses are developed:
H1. The use of the digital tool KABADA in EE workshop has a positive effect on the EI of Generation Z.
H2. The positive effect on EI of Generation Z is stronger when the digital tool KABADA is used in
EE workshop, compared to traditional EE workshop.
H2a. The positive effect on the knowledge of entrepreneurship of Generation Z is stronger when the
digital tool KABADA is used in EE workshop, compared to traditional EE workshop.
H2b. The positive effect on the feeling of being interested when imagining becoming an entrepreneur
in Generation Z is stronger when the digital tool KABADA is used in EE workshop, compared to
EE traditional workshop.
H2c. The positive effect on the feeling of being inspired when imagining becoming an entrepreneur
traditional EE workshop.
H2d. The positive effect on the approval of the idea that entrepreneurship could fulfil his or her life
H2e. The positive effect on the interest in entrepreneurship in Generation Z is stronger when the
digital tool KABADA is used in EE workshop, compared to traditional EE workshop.
H2f. The positive effect on the consideration to start an entrepreneurship within the next 5 years
4. Data and Research Methodology

4.1. Digital Tool KABADA in Entrepreneurship Education
In the digital age, automated software with AI algorithms and machine learning
components are widely used in different industries, and gradually it has to be more and
more introduced also in education [91,92]. The empirical part of this article analyzes
an experiment that examined the impact of using the digital tool KABADA on EI of
students in Generation Z. KABADA is abbreviation for Knowledge Alliance of Business Idea
Assessment: Digital Approach, and this tool was developed with a support of Erasmus+
project. The research on the use of the KABADA tool, which contains AI algorithms,
enriches the body of knowledge in the use of AI in EE, because the business planning tool
KABADA is a unique tool created in the ERASMUS+ project group and launched in 2022.
KABADA digital tool is a structured, web-based solution which helps students to
gradually build a business plan. Ahmed et al. [109], Dasgupta [110], Antwi et al. [111]
assumes that students should be familiar with the structure of a business plan and practice
making a business plan to implement business ideas. Based on theoretical research, business
statistics and AI, KABADA guides new entrepreneurs through every step of creating a
business plan [112].
The tool is designed to be used by different groups such as entrepreneurs, finance
institutions, labour organizations, but mainly is focused on students from different study
programs, and it is intended for both business and non-business students with different
backgrounds.
The content of KABADA tool is based on the classical structure and components of
business plan, containing all the most important business planning areas. Working on the
business plan, the student is guided through six large blocks—industry statistics, industry
risks, creating a business model Canvas, SWOT analysis, personal characteristics analysis
and financial projections [106]. The Figure 3 visually depicts the structural design of the
KABADA tool and the sequence in which its user moves through the platform.
The first block of KABADA introduces its user to the business statistics of the selected
industry in the country where it is planned to start business. To get a relative picture, the
system offers a comparison of a national level indicators with industry trends across the
European Union, obtained from the Eurostat. In the next block, KABADA introduces its
users to the various risks at the macro, industry and company level faced by companies
in the chosen industry. PESTE (political, economic, social, technological, environmental
factors) analysis is used as a framework for the macro-level risk analysis. Industry-level
risks are considered in the Michael Porter’s Five Forces Framework [113].
Central to the business planning activities in the KABADA tool is the development of
a business model using the Canvas concept of a business model proposed by Alexander
Osterwalder [88], further the Canvas is supported by SWOT analysis.
When developing a business model, the KABADA tool allows users to make choices
from a set of options predefined by the system.
The tool also includes a block of personal characteristics, in which the KABADA system
evaluates the readiness of students as potential entrepreneurs to start a business by complet-
ing a test for the assessment of individual characteristics affecting entrepreneurial activity.
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 21
Sustainability 2023, 15, 10135 and financial projections [106]. The Figure 3 visually depicts the structural design of9the
of 20
KABADA tool and the sequence in which its user moves through the platform.
Figure 3. Distribution of EE workshops and surveys across the groups.

Figure 3. Distribution of EE workshops and surveys across the groups.
The final block of the KABADA tool is the financial projections. It is linked with the
The first block of KABADA introduces its user to the business statistics of the selected
Business Model Canvas constructed before. Various types of assets, liabilities, revenue
industry
streams,in theitems,
cost country where
initial it is planned
investment to start
is already business.
specified To get a model
in business relativeCanvas.
picture,When
the
system offers a comparison of a national level indicators with industry
data is entered in the financial forecast block, KABADA generates a cash flow statement for trends across the
European
the first yearUnion, obtained from
of operations [97]. the Eurostat. In the next block, KABADA introduces its
users to the various
Several risks at
AI elements arethe macro, industry
integrated into the and company
KABADA tool,level
and faced
it can be by claimed
companies that
inthe
thesmart
chosen industry. PESTE (political, economic, social, technological,
advice provided by KABADA in business plan development is AI-based. The environmental
factors)
KABADA analysis is used virtual
tool utilizes as a framework
servers that for run
the AI
macro-level
software,risk analysis.
developed Industry-level
using the Python
risks are considered in the Michael Porter’s Five Forces Framework
programming language, and implementing Bayesian networks [114] for business plan struc- [113].
Central
tures. KABADA’sto the AIbusiness
algorithmsplanningemployactivities in theand
continuous KABADA tool is the
online machine development
learning, based on
ofdata
a business
provided modelby anusing the Canvas
expanding concept
database of a business
of business plansmodel proposed
available to theby Alexander
tool, ensuring
Osterwalder
increasingly[88], further
accurate the Canvas
advice to the useris supported
during the bybusiness
SWOT analysis.
plan development process.
When developing a business model, the KABADA
The KABADA digital tool is also related to the use of big data,’ tool allows users to make choices
it accumulates huge
from a set of options predefined by the system.
number of business plans, which contain immense information about business models,
The tool
financial also includes
assumptions anda projections,
block of personal whichcharacteristics,
the system must in which thetoKABADA
be able process and system
offer
evaluates the readinessrecommendations.
easy-to-understand of students as potential entrepreneurs to start a business by completing
a test for the assessment
In order to examine of individual
how the use characteristics
of the digitalaffecting entrepreneurial
tool KABADA activity. affects
in the workshop
the The
EI offinal blockof
students ofGeneration
the KABADA Z intool is the financial
different Europeanprojections.
universities,It is linked
this study with the
applied
Business Model Canvas
quasi-experimental constructed before. Various types of assets, liabilities, revenue
method.
streams, cost items, initial investment is already specified in business model Canvas.
4.2. Description
When of thein
data is entered Experiment
the financial andforecast
Sample Testing
block, KABADA generates a cash flow state-
ment for Thethe first year of
experiment wasoperations
conducted [97].
in the period from September 2022 to January 2023.
During
SeveralthisAIperiod, the same
elements lecturer conducted
are integrated 18 workshops,
into the KABADA working
tool, and it can both with experi-
be claimed that
mental
the smartgroups
adviceofprovided
students using
by KABADA the KABADA tool, and
in business with
plan control groups
development without using
is AI-based. The
the KABADA tool, but addressing the same issues in these workshops. The duration of
one workshop was three hours, and business planning issues were discussed and analyzed
while developing the business ideas of the participants of the experiment. Participants in
both the experimental and control groups were surveyed before and after the workshop to
find out how their EI had changed after the workshop. All workshops were held remotely.
Before starting the experiment, a test workshop was also held in order to better prepare for
the experiment.
As Figure 3 shows, in total, the sample consists of 808 respondents—students born
between 1995 and 2012 which are considered to be a Generation Z [115] from CEE countries
(Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia), and SE countries (Portugal, Italy, Spain). In
each session, its participants were surveyed both before and after workshops, including
in the second questionnaire a series of the same questions related to EI, knowledge of
entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial emotions as before the session, but not only. In total,
18 questions were included in the pre-workshop questionnaire, and 33 questions in the
post-workshop questionnaire. The questions were designed in such a way to find out
the EI of the respondents, and related assessments regarding entrepreneurial knowledge,
interest in entrepreneurship and others. The selection of both experimental and control
group members can be considered to be random, and their composition is similar in terms
of geography, education, occupation and other characteristics.
In the survey of the respondents before and after the KABADA and traditional work-
shops, the evaluation of the dependent variables was carried out using a Likert scale from
1–7. A Likert scale is considered to be a very useful device for the research measuring
intention and other sensual things like interest, inspiration etc., as they build in a degree of
sensitivity and differentiation of response while still generating numbers [116,117].
According to several previous researches [12], EE can have an important positive effect
on students with low initial entrepreneurial intent, so the authors have conducted a quasi-
experiment on teaching entrepreneurship to students from several study directions—both
business and non-business students [118].
Table 2 summarizes information on respondents’ distribution by age, gender, study
level and entrepreneurship experience before and after workshop with digital tool KABADA
and a traditional workshop.
Before conducting the above formulated hypothesis tests, the assumptions were eval-
uated to ensure an appropriate and reliable comparison. In order to evaluate statistical
significance of the respondent’s distribution by age, gender, region, study level and experi-
ence in entrepreneurship before and after teaching in workshop with digital tool KABADA
and teaching in traditional workshop, the authors use chi-squared test applying formula:
k
(Oi − Ei )2
χ2 = ∑ Ei
(1)
i =1
where Oi —observed frequency in i-th group, Ei —expected frequency in i-th group.

Table 3 summarizes χ2 statistics and p-values on respondents’ distribution by age,
gender, study level and experience in entrepreneurship before and after teaching with
digital tool KABADA and traditional workshop.
As indicators in Table 3 show, all p-values exceed 0.05, which means that differences
in respondents’ distribution by age, gender, region, study level and experience in en-
trepreneurship before and after teaching in workshop with digital tool KABADA as well as
before and after traditional workshop are not statistically significant.
Further the following dependent variables were investigated using descriptive statis-
tics, Shapiro–Wilk test, Wilcoxon–Man–Whitney test and Brunner–Munzel Test:
1. Self-assessment of knowledge of entrepreneurship (KNSA);
2. Intention to become an entrepreneur (INTE);
3. Feeling of being interested imagining becoming an entrepreneur (IINT);
4. Feeling of being inspired imagining becoming an entrepreneur (IINS);
5. Approval of the idea that entrepreneurship could fulfil his/her life (ESFL);
6. Interest in entrepreneurship (ESIT);
7. Consideration of starting business within the next 5 years (ES5Y).
Table 2. Distribution of respondents (n = 808) in the experimental group (KABADA workshop)

and control group (traditional workshop) by age, gender, region, study level and experience
in entrepreneurship.
KABADA Workshop Traditional Workshop

Variable
Before After Before After
Age
<22 39.1% 41.8% 52.0% 50.6
22–25 35.8% 32.9% 26.5% 32.2%
>25 25.1% 25.4% 21.6% 17.2%
Gender
Male 49.8% 52.1% 48.0% 48.3%
Female 50.2% 47.9% 52.0% 51.7%
Region
CEE 53.5% 53.1% 55.9% 57.5%
SE 46.5% 46.9% 44.1% 42.5%
Study level
College 1.5% 0.9% 9.8% 10.3%
Bachelor 1st and 2nd 48.3% 48.8% 59.8% 65.5%
Bachelor 3rd and 4th 27.7% 26.3% 14.7% 14.9%
Master studies 22.5% 23.9% 15.7% 9.2%
Experience in entrepreneurship
No 44.3% 39.4% 41.2% 41.4%
A little 31.7% 37.6% 34.3% 36.8%
Some 21.0% 19.7% 20.6% 17.2%
A lot 3.0% 3.3% 3.9% 4.6%
Source: Calculated by authors based on survey data.
Table 3. Chi-square statistics and p-values according to the distribution of respondents by age, gender,
study level and experience in entrepreneurship.
KABADA Workshop
KABADA Workshop Traditional Workshop
after vs. Traditional
Characteristics before vs. after before vs. after
Workshop after
χ2 p-Value χ2 p-Value χ2 p-Value
Age 0.511 0.775 1.987 0.370 1.358 0.507
Gender 0.252 0.616 0.002 0.963 0.142 0.706
Region 0.010 0.921 0.097 0.756 0.058 0.810
Study level 0.474 0.925 3.637 0.303 2.228 0.526
Experience in
1.989 0.575 0.816 0.846 1.497 0.683
entrepreneurship
Source: Calculated by the authors based on survey data.
Table 4 summarizes descriptive statistics for dependent variables before (B) and
after (A) teaching workshop with digital tool KABADA (K) application and traditional
workshop (W).
The Table 4 shows the average indicators of respondents’ answers regarding EI before
and after the workshops, as well as the calculated deviation indicators.
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for dependent variables before (B) and after (A) teaching using the
digital tool KABADA (K) and traditional workshop (W).
Type of Teaching (K,W),

Variable n Mean SD SE LCL UCL Med Min Max LCLmed UCLmed
before (B) or after (A)
BK 248 4.79 1.61 0.102 4.59 4.99 5 1 7 5 5
INTE
AK 193 5.18 1.37 0.098 4.98 5.37 5 1 7 5 6
AK 193 5.18 1.37 0.098 4.98 5.37 5 1 7 5 6
INTE
AW 174 4.76 1.47 0.112 4.54 4.98 5 1 7 5 5
AK 193 4.58 1.32 0.095 4.39 4.77 5 1 7 5 5
KNSA
AW 174 4.52 1.25 0.095 4.33 4.70 5 1 7 4 5
AK 193 5.24 1.60 0.115 5.01 5.47 6 1 7 5 6
IINT
AW 174 4.84 1.59 0.121 4.60 5.08 5 1 7 5 5
AK 193 5.10 1.50 0.108 4.89 5.32 5 1 7 5 6
IINS
AW 174 4.91 1.52 0.115 4.68 5.14 5 1 7 5 5
AK 193 5.15 1.38 0.099 4.95 5.35 5 1 7 5 6
ESFL
AW 174 4.84 1.32 0.100 4.64 5.04 5 1 7 5 5
AK 193 5.28 1.44 0.104 5.08 5.49 5 1 7 5 6
ESIT
AW 174 4.92 1.48 0.112 4.70 5.14 5 2 7 5 5
AK 193 4.75 1.83 0.132 4.49 5.01 5 1 7 5 5
ES5Y
AW 174 4.11 1.80 0.137 3.85 4.38 4 1 7 4 4
The internal consistency of questionnaire was validated by applying Cronbach’s alpha

exceed the value of 0.779, thus demonstrating an adequate level of reliability.
To assess the convergent validity of the construct, the average variance (AVE) was
obtained for all variables. The obtained AVE values (min 0.689) exceed the required
minimum level of 0.50 and thus show an acceptable level of convergent validity.
To test the normality of the sample, the authors used the Shapiro test function from
the R package to perform Shapiro–Wilk normality test for each dependent variable in
the compared groups. Table 5 summarizes the Shapiro–Wilk (SW) test statistics and the
p-values of the normality test of the dependent variables before (B) and after (A) teaching
workshop with the digital tool KABADA (K) and the traditional workshop (W).
Table 5. Shapiro–Wilk test statistic and p-values of normality test for dependent variables.
Variable Type of Teaching (K, W), before (B) or after (A) n SW-Statistics p-Value
BK 248 0.928 <0.001
INTE
AK 193 0.912 <0.001
AK 193 0.912 <0.001
INTE
AW 174 0.932 <0.001
AK 193 0.923 <0.001
KNSA
AW 174 0.905 <0.001
AK 193 0.888 <0.001
IINT
AW 174 0.928 <0.001
AK 193 0.915 <0.001
IINS
AW 174 0.928 <0.001
AK 193 0.912 <0.001
ESFL
AW 174 0.930 <0.001
AK 193 0.900 <0.001
ESIT
AW 174 0.922 <0.001
Table 5. Cont.
Variable Type of Teaching (K, W), before (B) or after (A) n SW-Statistics p-Value
AK 193 0.910 <0.001
ES5Y
AW 174 0.931 <0.001
As indicated in Table 5, Shapiro–Wilk test p-values for all dependent variables in com-
parable groups are <0.05, indicating that dependent variables are not normally distributed.
5. Results and Discussion

As the dependent variables for each comparable groups are not normally distributed,
the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test is believed to be more appropriate than an independent
samples t-test to test the hypothesis [119]. Table 6 summarizes Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney
test statistics (WMW), p-values and 95% confidence intervals.
As it can be seen in the Table 6, the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test results indicate
a statistically significant differences in: (1) intention to become an entrepreneur after EE
workshop with digital tool KABADA (W = 20870, p = 0.019), (2) intention to become an
entrepreneur after EE workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional EE
workshop (W = 14108, p = 0.007), (3) feeling of being interested when imagining becoming
an entrepreneur after EE workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional
EE workshop (W = 14211, p = 0.010), (4) approval of the idea that entrepreneurship could
fulfil his or her life after EE workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with tra-
ditional EE workshop (W = 14363, p = 0.014), (5) interest in entrepreneurship after EE
workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional EE workshop (W = 14283,
p = 0.012), (6) consideration to start an entrepreneurship within the next 5 years after EE
workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional EE workshop (W = 13464,
p = 0.001). Therefore, the hypothesis H1, H2, H2b, H2d, H2e and H2f are confirmed. Re-
garding hypothesis H2a and H2c, the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test results do not indicate
statistically significant differences and therefore cannot be confirmed.
Table 6. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test statistic, p-values and hypothesis test results.
Variable Tool WMW-Statistics df p-Value LCL UCL Hypothesis Test Result

INTE K 20,870 439 0.019 −1.000 −3.82 × 10−5 H1 supported
INTE KW 14,108 365 0.007 −1.000 −1.07 × 10−5 H2 supported
KNSA KW 16,240 365 0.577 −1.94 × 10−5 9.90 × 10−6 H2a not supported
IINT KW 14,211 365 0.010 −1.000 −3.74 × 10−5 H2b supported
IINS KW 15,512 365 0.199 −1.000 1.04 × 10−5 H2c not supported
ESFL KW 14,363 365 0.014 −1.000 −1.10 × 10−5 H2d supported
ESIT KW 14,283 365 0.012 −1.000 −1.66 × 10−5 H2e supported
ES5Y KW 13,464 365 0.001 −1.000 −4.83 × 10−5 H2f supported
Given that the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test has some limitations, the authors addi-
tionally use a permutation test based on Brunner–Munzel’s student rank statistic [120]. This
function performs the Brunner–Munzel test for stochastic equality of two samples, which
is also known as the Generalized Wilcoxon Test. Table 7 summarizes Brunner–Munzel test
statistics (BM), p-values, 95% confidence intervals and difference in the probability of Y
being greater than X and the probability of X being greater than Y of dependent variables.
Table 7. Brunner–Munzel test statistic for dependent variables, p-values and hypothesis test results.
Variable Tool BM-Statistics df p-Value LCL UCL P(X < Y) − P(X > Y) Hypothesis Test Result
INTE K 2.398 438 0.0169 0.023 0.233 0.128 H1 supported
INTE KW 2.744 357 0.0064 0.045 0.274 0.160 H2 supported
KNSA KW 0.558 362 0.5774 −0.083 0.149 0.033 H2a not supported
IINT KW 2.620 364 0.0092 0.038 0.269 0.154 H2b supported
IINS KW 1.286 361 0.1991 −0.040 0.193 0.076 H2c not supported
ESFL KW 2.486 365 0.0134 0.030 0.259 0.145 H2d supported
ESIT KW 2.540 353 0.0115 0.034 0.265 0.149 H2e supported
ES5Y KW 3.394 364 0.0008 0.083 0.313 0.198 H2f supported
As can be seen in Table 7, the results of the Brunner–Munzel test are the same to the
results of the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test.
The practical significance of differences in the distributions of the dependent variables
can be demonstrated by measures of effect size—the standardized U statistic divided by
the total number of observations or Rosenthal’s correlation coefficient (r) [121].
Table 8 summarizes Wilcoxon Effect Size test statistics, the number of respondents in
comparable groups and 1000 bootstrap 95% confidence intervals of Effect size-values.
As it can be seen in Table 8, all Wilcoxon effect size estimates are statistically signifi-
cant at the 95% confidence level, indicating that after EE workshops with the digital tool
KABADA, the main tendencies of all dependent variables are higher than before. The
strength of the relationship is greater for the following variables—intention to become an
entrepreneur after EE workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional EE
workshop (0.141), feeling of being interested when imagining becoming an entrepreneur
after EE workshop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional EE workshop
(0.135), consideration to start an entrepreneurship within the next 5 years after EE work-
shop with digital tool KABADA, compared with traditional EE workshop (0.173), related
respectively to hypothesis H2, H2b and H2f.
Table 8. Wilcoxon effect size statistic and confidence intervals for dependent variables.
Variable Tool Effect Size ni nj LCI UCI Magnitude

INTE K 0.112 248 193 0.032 0.203 small
INTE KW 0.141 174 193 0.041 0.241 small
KNSA KW 0.029 174 193 0.002 0.142 small
IINT KW 0.135 174 193 0.042 0.241 small
IINS KW 0.067 174 193 0.004 0.163 small
ESFL KW 0.128 174 193 0.032 0.232 small
ESIT KW 0.132 174 193 0.033 0.234 small
ES5Y KW 0.173 174 193 0.081 0.272 small
At the heart of the research problem is the question of the extent to which EE can
influence EI. In this study, this issue is specifically focused on Generation Z and the
involvement of a digital tool in the EE process. This study goes along with the opinion
of several authors [11–14] who indicate that EE has a positive effect on entrepreneurial
intention, which is proved by supporting H1, H2, H2B, H2d, H2e and H2f. At the same
time, taking into account studies that contain some doubts about the impact of EE on
entrepreneurial intention [15–17] it should be recognized that their reasoning also exists
because H2a and H2c were not supported.
Hammoda [80] believes that in EE, students’ willingness to act was most positively
influenced by all technologies, along with practical competencies such as “overcoming
ambiguity, uncertainty and risk” and “learning through experience” Studies on the effects of
digital platforms on learning outcomes before pandemics have produced conflicting results,
the current study finds that EE with digital tools on digital platforms improves learning
outcomes, the same findings were demonstrated by Alshammary and Alhalafawy [76].
Wibowo & Narmaditya [77] investigated how the direct effect of digital EE on dig-
ital entrepreneurship intentions and reveal the mediating role of knowledge and en-
trepreneurial inspiration. The findings remarked that digital EE could promote students’
digital entrepreneurship intentions. This study provided insights related to psychological
aspects in the form of entrepreneurial inspiration as one of the predictor variables and
mediators for increasing digital entrepreneurship intentions.
The research stream is in line with Pan and Lu [104], Wibowo and Narmaditya [77] who
believe that EE in colleges and universities affects students’ entrepreneurial intention and
entrepreneurial self-efficacy. This research also confirmed that entrepreneurial knowledge
plays a role as a mediator for digital EI.
‘The authors’ approach coincides with that of Almeida [81] who studied the EI of
students, taking into account students’ heterogeneous backgrounds or different profiles
and work experiences, which allows to study the role of EI.
His findings confirm that understanding EI requires a multidimensional model that
includes attitudes toward entrepreneurship, perceived entrepreneurial abilities, and en-
trepreneurship education, however other researchers [12] indicate that despite the impor-
tant common characteristic of Generation Z—the usage of IT tools, notable differences can
be found among them in different world regions, European countries, and even within a
single country.
This study supports the notion that the use of digital technologies contributes to
increased effectiveness in the performance of their academic tasks, the greater the students’
motivation to use them [83].
Several authors [109–111] believe that students should understand the importance
of creating a business plan based on their own business idea. Akpoviroro et al. [105]
and Dasgupta [110] reveal there is a significant relationship between business planning
activities and entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents as it was found that the digital
tool KABADA helps to perform these tasks.
6. Conclusions
In the latest scientific literature, consensus that EE has a positive effect on EI does
not exist, so the approach of this study is to assess whether the use of a digital tool with
an AI algorithm on EE affects students’ EI in the digital age, and whether this effect
is stronger compared to traditional teaching, especially considering that students now
represent Generation Z, which is heavily influenced by digital technologies.
This study contributes to the deepening of knowledge in the study of the effectiveness
of modern EE, taking into account the processes of digital transformation. The research
helps understand how to create and use digital tools and organize EE workshops to promote
EI among students with diverse backgrounds. The results of the study are also useful for
academics to explore the latest trends in digital transformation in HEIs, and the use of
digital tools for business planning in EE workshops to increase the EI of students from
different fields of study.
Universities, overwhelmed by technological advances and struggling to create and
develop their digital transformation strategy to be more sustainable, are forced to address
digital transformation and the use of AI in all areas, including EE. Since innovative teaching
methods in EE are related to the use of digital tools with AI algorithms and big data analysis
components, the authors have developed the digital tool KABADA for business planning.
The sample used in the empirical part of the study and the methodology of its analysis
ensures representativeness and demonstrates its external validity so that it can be applied
to a wider population, proving that the use of a digital tool is effective regardless of the
chosen student audience.
This research allows for the conclusion that, in general, the use of a digital tool
with built-in AI algorithms (on the example of the KABADA tool) in EE has a positive
effect on the EI of Generation Z, and that the positive impact on EI of Generation Z is
stronger when the workshop with the digital tool KABADA is applied, compared to the
traditional workshop.
The results of the study did not reveal a statistically significant effect from the use of
the digital tool KABADA in EE workshop on the knowledge of entrepreneurship and on
the feeling of being inspired when imagining becoming an entrepreneur in Generation Z,
compared to a traditional EE workshop.
A study of how subjective norms and behavior influence entrepreneurial intentions,
and an in-depth study of the differences in the EE of Generation Z students of different
regions and nationalities and the specifics of the factors influencing their EI are beyond the
scope of the current research.
For further research, it would be important not only to study regional and national
differences in the EI of Generation Z, but also to determine how the use of artificial-
intelligence-specific functionalities within the EE process affect its results.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.M. and K.L.; methodology, I.M., K.L. and A.S.; software,
A.S. and J.H.; validation, A.S.; formal analysis, K.L. and A.S.; investigation, I.M. and K.L.; resources,
K.L. and J.H.; data curation, A.S. and J.H.; writing original draft preparation, K.L. and A.S.; writing
review and editing, I.M.; visualization, I.M. and J.H.; supervision, I.M.; project administration, K.L.;
funding acquisition, J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the KABADA, Erasmus+ KA2 Knowledge Alliances program
(project number: 612542-EPP-1-2019-1-LV-EPPKA2-KA).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data can be requested via correspondence contacts.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. United Nations Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly on 6 July 2017, Work of the Statistical Commission Pertaining
to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2017. Available online: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1291226?ln=en
(accessed on 5 April 2023).
2. European Commission Digital Education Action Plan (2021–2027). European Education Area. Available online: https://education.
ec.europa.eu/node/1518 (accessed on 12 April 2023).
3. García-Hernández, A.; García-Valcárcel Muñoz-Repiso, A.; Casillas-Martín, S.; Cabezas-González, M. Sustainability in Digital
Education: A Systematic Review of Innovative Proposals. Educ. Sci. 2023, 13, 33. [CrossRef]
4. Aditya, B.R.; Ferdiana, R.; Kusumawardani, S.S. Categories for Barriers to Digital Transformation in Higher Education: An
Analysis Based on Literature. IJIET 2021, 11, 658–664. [CrossRef]
5. Alenezi, M. Deep Dive into Digital Transformation in Higher Education Institutions. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 770. [CrossRef]
6. Sreenivasan, A.; Suresh, M. Twenty Years of Entrepreneurship Education: A Bibliometric Analysis. Entrep. Educ. 2023, 6, 45–68.
[CrossRef]
7. Kuratko, D.F. The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2005,
29, 577–597. [CrossRef]
8. Pittaway, L.; Cope, J. Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 2007, 25, 479–510.
[CrossRef]
9. Fayolle, A.; Gailly, B. From Craft to Science: Teaching Models and Learning Processes in Entrepreneurship Education. J. Eur. Ind.
Train. 2008, 32, 569–593. [CrossRef]
10. Lackéus, M. An Emotion Based Approach to Assessing Entrepreneurial Education. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2014, 12, 374–396.
[CrossRef]
11. Asimakopoulos, G.; Hernández, V.; Peña Miguel, J. Entrepreneurial Intention of Engineering Students: The Role of Social Norms
and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4314. [CrossRef]
12. Cera, G.; Mlouk, A.; Cera, E.; Shumeli, A. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intention. A Quasi-
Experimental Research Design. JOC 2020, 12, 39–56. [CrossRef]
13. Iwu, C.G.; Opute, P.A.; Nchu, R.; Eresia-Eke, C.; Tengeh, R.K.; Jaiyeoba, O.; Aliyu, O.A. Entrepreneurship Education, Curriculum
and Lecturer-Competency as Antecedents of Student Entrepreneurial Intention. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100295. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, X.-H.; You, X.; Wang, H.-P.; Wang, B.; Lai, W.-Y.; Su, N. The Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial
Intention: Mediation of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Moderating Model of Psychological Capital. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2562.
[CrossRef]
15. Reissová, A.; Šimsová, J.; Sonntag, R.; Kučerová, K. The Influence of Personal Characteristics on Entrepreneurial Intentions:
International Comparison. EBER 2020, 8, 29–46. [CrossRef]
16. Zdolsek Draksler, T.; Sirec, K. The Study of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Entrepreneurial Competencies of Business vs.
Non-Business Students. JOC 2021, 13, 171–188. [CrossRef]
17. Martínez-Gregorio, S.; Badenes-Ribera, L.; Oliver, A. Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurship Intention and
Related Outcomes in Educational Contexts: A Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100545. [CrossRef]
18. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-Analytic Review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40,
471–499. [CrossRef]
19. Mason, C. Entrepreneurship Education and Research: Emerging Trends and Concerns. J. Glob. Entrep. 2011, 1, 13–22.
20. Ashari, H.; Abbas, I.; Abdul-Talib, A.-N.; Mohd Zamani, S.N. Entrepreneurship and Sustainable Development Goals: A
Multigroup Analysis of the Moderating Effects of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intention. Sustainability 2021,
14, 431. [CrossRef]
21. Ouyang, F.; Zheng, L.; Jiao, P. Artificial Intelligence in Online Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research from
2011 to 2020. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2022, 27, 7893–7925. [CrossRef]
22. Boissin, J.-P.; Favre-Bonté, V.; Fine-Falcy, S. Diverse Impacts of the Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention: Three Submodels,
Three Student Profiles. Rev. Entrep. 2018, 16, 17–43. [CrossRef]
23. Sousa, M.J.; Carmo, M.; Gonçalves, A.C.; Cruz, R.; Martins, J.M. Creating Knowledge and Entrepreneurial Capacity for HE
Students with Digital Education Methodologies: Differences in the Perceptions of Students and Entrepreneurs. J. Bus. Res. 2019,
94, 227–240. [CrossRef]
24. Jardim, J. Entrepreneurial Skills to Be Successful in the Global and Digital World: Proposal for a Frame of Reference for
Entrepreneurial Education. Educ. Sci. 2021, 11, 356. [CrossRef]
25. Cassol, A.; Tonial, G.; Machado, H.P.V.; Dalbosco, I.B.; Trindade, S. Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intentions and the Moderation
of Entrepreneurial Education: A Study of the Brazilian Context. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022, 20, 100716. [CrossRef]
26. Mannheim, K. The Problem of Generations. In Essays on the Sociology of Knowledge; Kecskemeti, P., Ed.; Routledge: London, UK,
1952; pp. 276–320.
27. Chillakuri, B.; Mahanandia, R. Generation Z Entering the Workforce: The Need for Sustainable Strategies in Maximizing Their
Talent. HRMID 2018, 26, 34–38. [CrossRef]
28. Schawbel, D. Gen Z Employees: The 5 Attributes You Need to Know. Available online: https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-
a-business/gen-z-employees-the-5-attributes-you-need-to-know/236560 (accessed on 13 April 2023).
29. Scholz, C.; Rennig, A. (Eds.) Generations Z in Europe: Inputs, Insights and Implications, 1st ed.; The changing context of managing
people; Emerald Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2019; ISBN 978-1-78973-492-8.
30. Iftode, D. Generation Z and Learning Styles. SSRN J. 2019, 7, 255–262. [CrossRef]
31. Demir, B.; Sönmez, G. Generation Z Students’ Expectations from English Language Instruction. Dil Ve Dilbilimi Çalışmaları Derg.
2021, 17, 683–701. [CrossRef]
32. Nikitina, T.; Licznerska, M.; Ozolin, a-Ozola, I.; Lapina, I. Individual Entrepreneurial Orientation: Comparison of Business and
STEM Students. Educ. Train. 2022. [CrossRef]
33. Vogel, M.P. Team Academy: A Radical Entrepreneurship Education Approach Has Its Premiere in Germany. In Applied Higher
Education Yearbook 2019; Cai, J., Lackner, H., Wang, Q., Eds.; Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2023;
pp. 197–213. ISBN 978-3-658-40425-3.
34. Vial, G. Understanding Digital Transformation: A Review and a Research Agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144.
[CrossRef]
35. Mirzagayeva, S.; Aslanov, H. The Digitalization Process: What Has It Led to, and What Can We Expect in the Future? Metafizika
2022, 5, 10–21.
36. Guellec, D.; Paunov, C. Digital Innovation and the Distribution of Income; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA,
USA, 2017; p. w23987.
37. Holopainen, M.; Saunila, M.; Ukko, J. Value Creation Paths of Organizations Undergoing Digital Transformation. Knowl. Process
Manag. 2023, 30, 125–136. [CrossRef]
38. Ionescu-Feleagă, L.; Ionescu, B.-S, .; Stoica, O.C. The Link between Digitization and the Sustainable Development in European
Union Countries. Electronics 2023, 12, 961. [CrossRef]
39. Iannone, B.; Caruso, G. “Sustainab-Lization”: Sustainability and Digitalization as a Strategy for Resilience in the Coffee Sector.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 4893. [CrossRef]
40. Galor, O. From Stagnation to Growth: Unified Growth Theory. In Handbook of Economic Growth; Aghion, P., Durlauf, S., Eds.;
Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; Volume 1, Part A, pp. 171–293.
41. Galor, O.; Moav, O. From Physical to Human Capital Accumulation: Inequality and the Process of Development. Rev. Econ. Stud.
2004, 71, 1001–1026. [CrossRef]
42. Azarnert, L.V. Free Education, Fertility and Human Capital Accumulation. J. Popul. Econ. 2010, 23, 449–468. [CrossRef]
43. Azarnert, L.V. Health Capital Provision and Human Capital Accumulation. Oxf. Econ. Pap. 2020, 72, 633–650. [CrossRef]
44. Cruz-Cárdenas, J.; Ramos-Galarza, C.; Guadalupe-Lanas, J.; Palacio-Fierro, A.; Galarraga-Carvajal, M. Bibliometric Analysis of
Existing Knowledge on Digital Transformation in Higher Education. In HCI International 2022-Late Breaking Papers. Interaction
in New Media, Learning and Games; Meiselwitz, G., Moallem, A., Zaphiris, P., Ioannou, A., Sottilare, R.A., Schwarz, J., Fang, X.,
Eds.; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer Nature Switzerland: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; Volume 13517, pp. 231–240.
ISBN 978-3-031-22130-9.
45. Benavides, L.; Tamayo Arias, J.; Arango Serna, M.; Branch Bedoya, J.; Burgos, D. Digital Transformation in Higher Education
Institutions: A Systematic Literature Review. Sensors 2020, 20, 3291. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Brdesee, H. A Divergent View of the Impact of Digital Transformation on Academic Organizational and Spending Efficiency: A
Review and Analytical Study on a University E-Service. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7048. [CrossRef]
47. Rodríguez-Abitia, G.; Bribiesca-Correa, G. Assessing Digital Transformation in Universities. Future Internet 2021, 13, 52. [CrossRef]
48. Akour, M.; Alenezi, M. Higher Education Future in the Era of Digital Transformation. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 784. [CrossRef]
49. Ratten, V.; Usmanij, P. Entrepreneurship Education: Time for a Change in Research Direction? Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100367.
[CrossRef]
50. Makowicz, B. Compliance and Integrity as Core Elements of Governance in the Educational Sector in the Digital Age. In The
Future of Responsible Management Education; Hauser, C., Amann, W., Eds.; Humanism in Business Series; Springer International
Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 153–171, ISBN 978-3-031-15631-1.
51. Nicoli, N.; Komodromos, M. CSR Communication in the Digital Age: A Case Study of The Bank of Cyprus. In Cases on Corporate
Social Responsibility and Contemporary Issues in Organizations; Alexandros, A., Evi, D., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2019;
pp. 71–89. ISBN 978-1-5225-7716-4.
52. Aasi, P.; Rusu, L. Facing the Digitalisation Challenge: Why Organisational Culture Matters and How IT Influences IT Governance
Performance. In Information Systems Development: Advances in Methods, Tools and Management (ISD2017 Proceedings); University of
Central Lancashire Cyprus: Larnaca, Cyprus, 2017; ISBN 978-9963-2288-3-6.
53. Blau, I.; Shamir-Inbal, T. Digital Competences and Long-Term ICT Integration in School Culture: The Perspective of Elementary
School Leaders. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2017, 22, 769–787. [CrossRef]
54. Miço, H.; Cungu, J. Entrepreneurship Education, a Challenging Learning Process towards Entrepreneurial Competence in
Education. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 22. [CrossRef]
55. Saranza, C.; Bueno, N.; Andrin, G.; Niñal, M. Teachers’ Entrepreneurial Competence and Teaching Methods in Entrepreneurship
Education: A Basis for Teachers Training Curriculum. Eur. Sch. J. 2022, 3, 66–86.
56. Uerz, D.; Volman, M.; Kral, M. Teacher Educators’ Competences in Fostering Student Teachers’ Proficiency in Teaching and
Learning with Technology: An Overview of Relevant Research Literature. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 70, 12–23. [CrossRef]
57. Petko, D.; Prasse, D.; Cantieni, A. The Interplay of School Readiness and Teacher Readiness for Educational Technology
Integration: A Structural Equation Model. Comput. Sch. 2018, 35, 1–18. [CrossRef]
58. Gudmundsdottir, G.B.; Hatlevik, O.E. Newly Qualified Teachers’ Professional Digital Competence: Implications for Teacher
Education. Eur. J. Teach. Educ. 2018, 41, 214–231. [CrossRef]
59. Van de Oudeweetering, K.; Voogt, J. Teachers’ Conceptualization and Enactment of Twenty-first Century Competences: Exploring
Dimensions for New Curricula. Curric. J. 2018, 29, 116–133. [CrossRef]
60. Ala, M.; Robin, M.; Rasul, T.; Wegner, D. Understanding the Possibilities and Conditions for Instructor-AI Collaboration
in Entrepreneurship Education. In Technology and Entrepreneurship Education; Hyams-Ssekasi, D., Yasin, N., Eds.; Springer
International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 159–185, ISBN 978-3-030-84291-8.
61. Griesbaum, J. Trends in E-Learning: Impacts of Social Mobile Technologies on Information Behavior, Formal Learning and the
Educational Market. IJIET 2017, 7, 123–129. [CrossRef]
62. Deming, D.J.; Goldin, C.; Katz, L.F.; Yuchtman, N. Can Online Learning Bend the Higher Education Cost Curve? Am. Econ. Rev.
2015, 105, 496–501. [CrossRef]
63. European Commission. Modernisation of Higher Education; European Commission: Luxembourg, 2013; p. 84.
64. Pucciarelli, F.; Kaplan, A. Competition and Strategy in Higher Education: Managing Complexity and Uncertainty. Bus. Horiz.
2016, 59, 311–320. [CrossRef]
65. Arisoy, B. Digitalization in Education. CJES 2022, 17, 1799–1811. [CrossRef]
66. Cattaneo, M.; Horta, H.; Malighetti, P.; Meoli, M.; Paleari, S. The Relationship between Competition and Programmatic
Diversification. Stud. High. Educ. 2019, 44, 1222–1240. [CrossRef]
67. Frey, C.B.; Osborne, M.A. The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation? Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Chang. 2017, 114, 254–280. [CrossRef]
68. Souder, D.; Zaheer, A.; Sapienza, H.; Ranucci, R. How Family Influence, Socioemotional Wealth, and Competitive Conditions
Shape New Technology Adoption: Family Influence and New Technology Adoption. Strateg. Manag. J. 2017, 38, 1774–1790.
[CrossRef]
69. Reitz, T. Academic Hierarchies in Neo-Feudal Capitalism: How Status Competition Processes Trust and Facilitates the Appropria-
tion of Knowledge. High Educ. 2017, 73, 871–886. [CrossRef]
70. Di Paola, N.; Meglio, O.; Vona, R. Entrepreneurship Education in Entrepreneurship Laboratories. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2023,
21, 100793. [CrossRef]
71. Kopylova, N. Technologies for Higher Education Digitalization. In Technologies in a Multilingual Environment; Bylieva, D.,
Nordmann, A., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023;
Volume 636, pp. 402–412, ISBN 978-3-031-26782-6.
72. Bulman, G.; Fairlie, R.W. Technology and Education. In Handbook of the Economics of Education; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The
Netherlands, 2016; Volume 5, pp. 239–280, ISBN 978-0-444-63459-7.
73. Henderson, M.; Selwyn, N.; Aston, R. What Works and Why? Student Perceptions of ‘Useful’ Digital Technology in University
Teaching and Learning. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1567–1579. [CrossRef]
74. Jafari Navimipour, N.; Soltani, Z. The Impact of Cost, Technology Acceptance and Employees’ Satisfaction on the Effectiveness of
the Electronic Customer Relationship Management Systems. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 55, 1052–1066. [CrossRef]
75. Baum, S.; Kurose, C.; Mcpherson, M. An Overview of American Higher Education. Future Child. 2013, 23, 17–39. [CrossRef]
76. Alshammary, F.M.; Alhalafawy, W.S. Digital Platforms and the Improvement of Learning Outcomes: Evidence Extracted from
Meta-Analysis. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1305. [CrossRef]
77. Wibowo, A.; Narmaditya, B.S. Predicting Students’ Digital Entrepreneurial Intention: The Mediating Role of Knowledge and
Inspiration. Din. Pendidik. 2022, 17, 25–36. [CrossRef]
78. Garcez, A.; Silva, R.; Franco, M. The Hard Skills Bases in Digital Academic Entrepreneurship in Relation to Digital Transformation.
Soc. Sci. 2022, 11, 192. [CrossRef]
79. Giuggioli, G.; Pellegrini, M.M. Artificial Intelligence as an Enabler for Entrepreneurs: A Systematic Literature Review and an
Agenda for Future Research. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2022, 29, 816–837. [CrossRef]
80. Hammoda, B. Mapping Digital Technologies Used in Entrepreneurship Education against the Competences They Develop Using
Entrecomp Framework as a Reference: A Systematic Literature Review. In Proceedings of the INTED2022, Online Conference,
7–8 March 2022; pp. 5489–5498.
81. Almeida, F. The Role of Professional Experience in the Entrepreneurial Intention in Higher Education. Int. J. Prof. Dev. Learn.
Learn. 2023, 5, ep2303. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Heubeck, T. Managerial Capabilities as Facilitators of Digital Transformation? Dynamic Managerial Capabilities as Antecedents
to Digital Business Model Transformation and Firm Performance. Digit. Bus. 2023, 3, 100053. [CrossRef]
83. Pires, D.; Fortes, N. Determinants of the Adoption of Digital Platforms in Higher Education Institutions by Students. In Perspectives
and Trends in Education and Technology; Mesquita, A., Abreu, A., Carvalho, J.V., de Mello, C.H.P., Eds.; Smart Innovation, Systems
and Technologies; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023; Volume 320, pp. 363–373, ISBN 978-981-19658-4-5.
84. Panoutsopoulos, H.; Lykourentzou, M.-A.; Sampson, D.G. Business Simulation Games as Digital Tools for Supporting School
Entrepreneurship Education. In Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies,
Athens, GA, USA, 6–8 July 2011; IEEE: Athens, GA, USA, 2011; pp. 155–156.
85. Blankesteijn, M.; Houtkamp, J. Digital Tools and Experiential Learning in Science-Based Entrepreneurship Education. In Technology
and Entrepreneurship Education; Hyams-Ssekasi, D., Yasin, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022;
pp. 227–250, ISBN 978-3-030-84291-8.
86. Chen, L.; Ifenthaler, D. Artificial Intelligence in Entrepreneurship Education: A Scoping Review; AERA Annual Meeting: Chicago, IL,
USA, 2023.
87. Moturu, V.R.; Nethi, S.D. Artificial Intelligence in Education. In Emerging IT/ICT and AI Technologies Affecting Society; Chaurasia,
M.A., Juang, C.-F., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems; Springer Nature Singapore: Singapore, 2023; Volume 478,
pp. 233–244. ISBN 978-981-19293-9-7.
88. Mavlutova, I.; Volkova, T. Digital Transformation of Financial Sector and Challengies for Competencies Development. In
Proceedings of the 2019 7th International Conference on Modeling, Development and Strategic Management of Economic System
(MDSMES 2019), Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, 24–25 October 2019; Atlantis Press: Ivano-Frankivsk, Ukraine, 2019.
89. Rathore, N.P.; Dangi, M. Embedding Artificial Intelligence into Education: The New Normal. In Applications of Artificial Intelligence
in Business, Education and Healthcare; Hamdan, A., Hassanien, A.E., Khamis, R., Alareeni, B., Razzaque, A., Awwad, B., Eds.;
Studies in Computational Intelligence; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; Volume 954, pp. 255–270,
ISBN 978-3-030-72079-7.
90. Hao, K. China Has Started a Grand Experiment in AI Education. It Could Reshape How the World Learns. Available on-
line: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/02/131198/china-squirrel-has-started-a-grand-experiment-in-ai-education-
it-could-reshape-how-the/ (accessed on 12 April 2023).
91. Tanenbaum, C. STEM 2026: A Vision for Innovation in STEM Education. Available online: https://www.air.org/resource/report/
stem-2026-vision-innovation-stem-education (accessed on 13 April 2023).
92. Woolf, B.P.; Lane, H.C.; Chaudhri, V.K.; Kolodner, J.L. AI Grand Challenges for Education. AIMag 2013, 34, 66–84. [CrossRef]
93. Li, W.; Xue, Z.; Li, J.; Wang, H. The Interior Environment Design for Entrepreneurship Education under the Virtual Reality and
Artificial Intelligence-Based Learning Environment. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 944060. [CrossRef]
94. Atitsogbe, K.A.; Mama, N.P.; Sovet, L.; Pari, P.; Rossier, J. Perceived Employability and Entrepreneurial Intentions Across
University Students and Job Seekers in Togo: The Effect of Career Adaptability and Self-Efficacy. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 180.
[CrossRef]
95. Kasler, J.; Zysberg, L.; Harel, N. Hopes for the Future: Demographic and Personal Resources Associated with Self-Perceived
Employability and Actual Employment among Senior Year Students. J. Educ. Work 2017, 30, 881–892. [CrossRef]
96. Lim, R.H.; Lent, R.W.; Penn, L.T. Prediction of Job Search Intentions and Behaviors: Testing the Social Cognitive Model of Career
Self-Management. J. Couns. Psychol. 2016, 63, 594–603. [CrossRef]
97. Lesinskis, K.; Carvalho, L.; Mavlutova, I.; Dias, R. Comparative Analysis of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions in Latvia and
Other CEE Countries. WSEAS Trans. Bus. Econ. 2022, 19, 1633–1642. [CrossRef]
98. Davey, T.; Plewa, C.; Struwig, M. Entrepreneurship Perceptions and Career Intentions of International Students. Educ. Train. 2011,
53, 335–352. [CrossRef]
99. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Reactions and Reflections. Psychol. Health 2011, 26, 1113–1127. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
100. Sheppard, B.H.; Hartwick, J.; Warshaw, P.R. The Theory of Reasoned Action: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research with Recommen-
dations for Modifications and Future Research. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 325–343. [CrossRef]
101. Vamvaka, V.; Stoforos, C.; Palaskas, T.; Botsaris, C. Attitude toward Entrepreneurship, Perceived Behavioral Control, and
Entrepreneurial Intention: Dimensionality, Structural Relationships, and Gender Differences. J. Innov. Entrep. 2020, 9, 5.
[CrossRef]
102. Carvalho, L.; Costa, T.; Mares, P. A Success Story in a Partnership Programme for Entrepreneurship Education: Outlook of
Students Perceptions towards Entrepreneurship. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2015, 9, 444–465. [CrossRef]
103. Cheung, C. Entrepreneurship Education in Hong Kong’s Secondary Curriculum: Possibilities and Limitations. Educ. Train. 2008,
50, 500–515. [CrossRef]
104. Pan, B.; Lu, G. Study on the Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and College Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention
and Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. Chin. Educ. Soc. 2022, 55, 269–285. [CrossRef]
105. Akpoviroro Kowo, S.; Adeleke, O.-A.; Akinbola, O.; Abdulazeez, S. The Influence of Entrepreneurship Education on En-
trepreneurial Intention. Int. J. Entrep. Innov. 2022, 12, 1–14.
106. Carvalho, L.; Mavlutova, I.; Lesinskis, K.; Dias, R. Entrepreneurial Perceptions of Students Regarding Business Professional
Career: The Study on Gender Differences in Latvia. Econ. Sociol. 2021, 14, 220–241. [CrossRef]
107. Madden, C. Hello Gen Z: Engaging the Generation of Post-Millennials, 2nd ed.; Hello Clarity: Sydney, Australia, 2018.
108. Giray, L. Meet the Centennials: Understanding the Generation Z Students. Int. J. Sociol. Anthropol. Sci. Rev. 2022, 2, 918. [CrossRef]
109. Ahmed, T.; Chandran, V.G.R.; Klobas, J. Specialized Entrepreneurship Education: Does It Really Matter? Fresh Evidence from
Pakistan. IJEBR 2017, 23, 4–19. [CrossRef]
110. Dasgupta, A. Displacement and Exile: The State-Refugee Relations in India; Oxford University Press: New Delhi, India, 2016;
ISBN 978-0-19-908698-6.
111. Antwi, S.; Kasim, H. Qualitative and Quantitative Research Paradigms in Business Research: A Philosophical Reflection. Eur. J.
Bus. Manag. 2015, 7, 217–225.
112. Start off Your Business on the Right Foot. Available online: http://kabada.ba.lv/#/ (accessed on 12 April 2023).
113. Porter, M.E. How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy. In Harvard Business Review; Harvard Business Review: London, UK, 1979;
Volume 57, pp. 133–145.
114. Ben-Gal, I. Bayesian Networks. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Quality and Reliability; Ruggeri, F., Kenett, R.S., Faltin, F.W., Eds.;
Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; ISBN 978-0-470-01861-3.
115. Twenge, J.M. IGEN: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—And Completely
Unprepared for Adulthood and (What This Means for the Rest of Us); Atria Books: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-1-5011-5198-9.
116. Likert, R. A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes; Archives of psychology; The Science Press: New York, NY, USA, 1932.
117. Kulas, J.T.; Stachowski, A.A.; Haynes, B.A. Middle Response Functioning in Likert-Responses to Personality Items. J. Bus. Psychol.
2008, 22, 251–259. [CrossRef]
118. Zhang, Y.; Duysters, G.; Cloodt, M. The Role of Entrepreneurship Education as a Predictor of University Students’ Entrepreneurial
Intention. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2014, 10, 623–641. [CrossRef]
119. Wilcox, R.R. Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing, 5th ed.; Elsevier, Inc.: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2021;
ISBN 978-0-12-820098-8.
120. Neubert, K.; Brunner, E. A Studentized Permutation Test for the Non-Parametric Behrens–Fisher Problem. Comput. Stat. Data
Anal. 2007, 51, 5192–5204. [CrossRef]
121. Ben-Shachar, M.; Lüdecke, D.; Makowski, D. Effectsize: Estimation of Effect Size Indices and Standardized Parameters. J. Open
Source Softw. 2020, 5, 2815. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use of A Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of Generation Z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use of A Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of Generation Z

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Digital Transformation in Entrepreneurship Education: The Use of A Digital Tool KABADA and Entrepreneurial Intention of Generation Z

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

1 Department of Management, BA School of Business and Finance, 1013 Riga, Latvia

Academic Editors: Nikolaos 1. Introduction

Sustainability 2023, 15, 10135. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310135 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

2. The Impact of Digital Transformation and Artificial Intelligence in

Table 1. Substantial determinants of the adoption of digitalization in entrepreneurship education

Determinants of the Adoption

As Table 1 indicates, the main substantial determinants of the adoption of digitalization

4. Data and Research Methodology

Figure 3. Distribution of EE workshops and surveys across the groups.

where Oi —observed frequency in i-th group, Ei —expected frequency in i-th group.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents (n = 808) in the experimental group (KABADA workshop)

KABADA Workshop Traditional Workshop

Type of Teaching (K,W),

The internal consistency of questionnaire was validated by applying Cronbach’s alpha

5. Results and Discussion

Table 6. Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test statistic, p-values and hypothesis test results.

Variable Tool WMW-Statistics df p-Value LCL UCL Hypothesis Test Result

Variable Tool Effect Size ni nj LCI UCI Magnitude

You might also like