ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT OF STUDENTS INVOLVED IN

ENTREPRENEURIAL PRACTICES IN SELECTED TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS IN

ONDO STATE.

BY

ADEMOLA GOODLUCK

GEO/18/3002

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND

NON-FORMAL EDUCATION (DCE), SCHOOL OF EDUCATION, ADEYEMI
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, ONDO, ONDO STATE, NIGERIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF

THE BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION (B.Sc. Ed)
OF THE OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY, ILE -IFE, NIGERIA.

APRIL, 2023

i
 CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this project was carried out by ADEMOLA GOODLUCK,
Matriculation Number GEO/18/3002 of Department of Geography, Adeyemi College of
Education, Ondo, Ondo State under my Supervision.

___________________ ________________
Mrs. O. A. Funmilayo Date
Supervisor

ii
 DEDICATION
This project work is dedicated to God Almighty the giver of life and chance and my parents
Mr. and Mrs. Ademola Adeniji.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I give glory to God Almighty, the giver of life and chance, who had made it possible for me and
seen me through the completion of my study.

My appreciation goes to my supervisor, Mrs. O.A. Funmilayo for her effort in going through my
work, making corrections and giving suggestions and encouragement towards the successful
completion of this project. I also appreciate the efforts of my departmental lecturers. May God
increase your knowledge and understanding.

My profound gratitude goes to my mother and brother, Late Mrs.Basiratu Ademola, Mr. John
Ademola who strived hard and deprived themselves of many things to give me the best. Thanks
for the support in terms of care, finance moral and prayers. I pray that you live long to reap the
fruits of your labour in good health (Amen).

I cannot but acknowledge my friends; Gbenga, Temitayo, Elijah, Stella Maris, thanks for your
support, advice and encouragement towards the successful completion of my programme in this
citadel of learning. May God bless you all. See you at the top

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Contents
CERTIFICATION.......................................................................................................................................ii

DEDICATION............................................................................................................................................iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT..........................................................................................................................iv

TABLE OF CONTENT...............................................................................................................................v

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................................viii

CHAPTER ONE..........................................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................1

1.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY............................................................................................1

1.2. STATEMENT OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................4

1.3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY..........................................................................................................4

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................................5

1.5. HYPOTHESIS...............................................................................................................................5

1.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................5

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY..................................................................................................................6

1.8. DEFINITION OF TERMS...............................................................................................................6

CHAPTER TWO.........................................................................................................................................8

LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................................8

2.1 CONCEPT OF ENTREPRENURIAL PRACTICES.........................................................................8

2.2 Theoretical background ....................................................................................................................9

2.3 Conceptual framework.....................................................................................................................13

2.3.1 The growing relevance of student entrepreneurs ..........................................................................13

2.3.2 The context dimension of students’ business creation..................................................................14

v
 2.3. 3 The process dimension of students’ business creation.................................................................15

2. 4 Drivers of student entrepreneurship ..............................................................................................16

2. 4.1 Individual vectors.......................................................................................................................17

2.4.2 Systemic vectors..........................................................................................................................19

2.5 Barriers to the advancement of student entrepreneurship.................................................................23

2. 6 Student motivations to start/run a business.....................................................................................23

2.7. CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT............................................................................25

2.7.1. What Is Engagement....................................................................................................................26

2.7.2: Dimensions of Engagement.........................................................................................................28

2.8. Behavioural Engagement ...............................................................................................................32

2.8.2 Cognitive Engagement..................................................................................................................32

2.8.3 Emotional Engagement.................................................................................................................33

2.9 Model of Engagement......................................................................................................................33

2.10 Comparison between Models of Engagement by Fredricks et al. (2004) and Schaufeli et al. (2002)
...............................................................................................................................................................34

CHAPTER THREE...................................................................................................................................36

METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................................36

3.1 Research Design..................................................................................................................36

3.2 population of the Study......................................................................................................36

3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique.......................................................................................36

3.4 Instrument for Data collection.........................................................................................36

3.5 Validity of the instrument..............................................................................................37

3.6 Method of Data Collection.............................................................................................37

3.7 Method of Data Analysis.............................................................................................37

vi
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................38

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT..........................................................................................................38

4.1 Answering Research Questions.......................................................................................................39

4.3 Discussion of Findings..................................................................................................................42

CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................44

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMNDATIONS...................................................................44

5.1 Summary........................................................................................................................................44

5.2 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................44

5.3 Recommendations.........................................................................................................................45

REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................46

APPENDIX...............................................................................................................................................48

vii
 ABSTRACT
This research project focused on the assessments of academic engagement of students involved
in entrepreneurial practices in selected tertiary institutions. To carry out this research,
descriptive survey research design was adopted. The population of study consist of selected
tertiary institutions in Ondo town: Proposive simple sampling techniques was used to sample
100 questionnaires. Structured questionnaire was used as an instrument to gather information
from the respondents. Mean was used to answer the research questions while Analysis of
variance and T-test was used to test the hypothesis. It was found out that there was no
significance difference in the academic engagement of undergraduates involved in
entrepreneurial practices based on level, gender but there was a significance difference in the
academic engagement level of undergraduates involved in entrepreneurial practices based on
school type. This is evident in the result as private schools having a higher academic
engagement mean of 54.74 while public had 50.52.Based on the result of the data analysed and
the discussion of the study, it was concluded that majority of the sampled students involved in
entrepreneurial practices in Ondo town highly engaged in academic activities. It was also
concluded that academic level and gender does not influence academic engagement of students
involved in entrepreneurial practice; but academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices is dependent of school type in favor of students from private schools.
Based on the summary of the study and the conclusion this recommendation was made among
others. The tertiary institutions students should be sensitized on the need to sustain their levels if
academic engagement which was found to be high.

viii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

In every tertiary institutions, students involved in entrepreneurship are always found Many
students are into one business or the other because they believe that being an entrepreneur is the
only way to support their parents, some students even sponsor themselves with the businesses. It
has now occurred that not only students who get financial assistance from their parents are in
universities, a number of them get engaged in self initiated businesses and other kinds of
commercial practices. These self initiated businesses are sources of income which helps even in
desperate situations. Students are now faced with a wider variety of employment options, the
probability of ending up with a diversity of jobs, more responsibility at work and more stress
which makes entrepreneurship a more appealing option for future graduates. There is no small
business to engage in, in as much it’s yielding profit and helps to meet financial needs.

Entrepreneurship skills provide students with more flexibility in choosing their career.
Starting their own business at any point in their life is still an option due to economic crisis,
downsizing or other events. Involvement in business both for old, young, literates, Illiterates,
students and non- students is referred to as entrepreneurship. The first definition of the term
entrepreneur was provided by cantillon in 1755.Entrepreneur or “undertakers” in a literal
translation are “gens a gages in certains” (cantillon), which in modern English translates to
“someone who assumes the risk and may legitimately appropriate any profits”. An entrepreneur
is an innovator who introduces new services, products or technology and entrepreneurial practice
is the practice in which an individual innovates, own, finance and manage his or her own
business.

“Entrepreneurship “is originally derived from a French word ENTRENPRENDRE which

means to “undertake” (Anurag, 2015).Entrepreneurship refers to the first stage of founding a
business. Entrepreneurship is seen as a process of change for the venture and the entrepreneurial.
Entrepreneurship is a practice, this means that entrepreneurship is not a state of being.
Entrepreneurship begins with action and creation of new organization. The study of the

1
phenomenon of student entrepreneurship is a dual opportunity. The first is the opportunity to
zoom in one category of entrepreneurs. The second opportunity is to study studentpreneurs as an
exemplary case with examples(Michael Dal, Bill Gate or Mark Zuckerberg). Entrepreneurship
has been identified as the best solution to unemployment, poverty among the youths that cannot
find jobs to help themselves in school (Brown 2014).. Entrepreneurship can be summed up as
nothing but the process of creating something new with a value, particularly responding to the
opportunities available.

Entrepreneurship involves creation or expansion of business, risk taking or acceptance of failure

(Anurag,2015). Student entrepreneur are not just as students attending classes but as conducting
a business on or near campus while simultaneously attending formal university award courses. A
student entrepreneur is an individual attending award classes at the university and conducting
innovative revenue generating entrepreneurial activities. The entrepreneurial behaviour in
students involved in tertiary institutions have received far less attention literature than it probably
deserves. Engagement in entrepreneurial activity has some significant effect (good or bad) on
students academic performance. In cases where this situation exists, there are needs on their
academic engagement.

Academic engagement is an indicator that combined academic identification (which refers to

getting along with teachers, having an interest in the subject matter and related behaviours and
attitudes) and academic participation. Academic engagement is the active involvement of
students such as the use of library, participation in group work, participation in practicals,
discussion with level advisers and asking and answering of questions in the classroom. Academic
engagement is the extent to which a student participates in academic and non-academic related
activities as well as identifies with and values the goals of studying. It is fulfilling and positive
study-related state of mind that is characterised by absorption, vigor and dedication. It
emphasizes on student’s participation, commitment investment and identification with schooling
and school related activities to enhance students performance. This is also the energy and time a
student devotes to educational sound activities outside and inside classrooms and practices and
policies that educational institutions use to encourage the student to participate in these activities.

2
 Academic engagement is the quantity of student’s participation or connection with the school
with the schooling endeavour and hence with activities, values, people, goals and place that
comprise it. It is also a student’s initiation of effort, action and persistence in schoolwork as well
as his ambient emotional stakes during leaning activities. Academic engagement of students can
be in various dimensions: Behavioural engagement ( participation) ,participation in classroom
and school activities. It involves behaviour such as discussion contribution, asking questions,
paying attention, concentrating, exhibiting persistence and putting forth effort. This behavioural
engagement is a directly observable dimension of engagement and the salient indicators of this
dimension include truancy, preparation for school, attendance, participation in Curricular and
extracurricular tasks and discipline referrals. It is the physical engagement of students.

Cognitive engagement refers to student’s investment in learning and involves aspects such as
willingness and thoughtfulness to expend the effort required to understand and master difficult
tasks, the use of appropriate learning strategies (student’s use of elaboration rather than
memorization), challenge preference and self regulation. Indicators of cognitive engagement
include asking questions for clarification of ideas, persistence in difficult activities, flexibility in
problem solving, use of learning strategies(relating new information to existing information)and
use of self-regulation to support learning. Scholars have variously identified emotional
engagement as motivational engagement and affective engagement which describes student’s
positive and negative emotional reactions toward teachers, classmates, academic works and
school in general. It include such as the presence of interest and happiness and the lack of
boredom, anxiety and sadness. Students exhibiting emotional engagement have a sense of
identification with belonging to the school, value school outcomes and feel as though they are
supported by their peers and teachers (Oqab, Huy, Bing, 2018).

Therefore, every students irrespective of their status are expected to get engaged in academic
activities either in private or public institutions. Considering their status, it is therefore necessary
to examine the level of academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurship in tertiary
institutions in Ondo State Nigeria.

3
1.2. STATEMENT OF THE STUDY
There are chances of students involved in entrepreneurship not to participate fully in their
academics because they find it difficult to balance businesses and academics. Research has been
carried on student’s engagement in entrepreneurship. Grimaldi, Guerrero, Fitzsimmons and
douglas have carried their various researches study. Grimaldi et al(2011) conducted a research on
entrepreneur behaviour in students.
Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2005) examined entrepreneurial interest, studies have mainly
focused on the determinants of entrepreneurial intention with less focus on actual engagement in
entrepreneurship. The emphasis therefore is on the inclination of an individual to start an
entrepreneurial activity in the future. Although entrepreneurial intention is the primary step
towards the creation of a new venture in the entrepreneurial process, individuals already engaged
in entrepreneurial unequivocally have a higher possibility of owning a business venture in the
future. A dearth in the literature for studies that provide findings for determinants of
entrepreneurship engagement particularly among students and whether it has any effect on
academic performance. Guerrero et al (2017), wright et al (2017) conducted research on the
relevance of individual characteristics in promoting student’s entrepreneurship.

But none of these research studies and have been conducted on the academic
engagement of students engaged in entrepreneurship in tertiary institutions in Ondo State,
Nigeria. Therefore, there is need for this research to be carried out.

1.3. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The general purpose of this study is going to be to examine the academic engagement of
students engaged in entrepreneurship in tertiary institutions.

The specific purposes will be as follows:

i)examine the academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practice

ii) assess the differences in academic engagement level of students involved in entrepreneurial
practice based on gender.

iii) investigate the differences in academic engagement level of students involved in

entrepreneurial practice based on school type.
4
iv) analyse the differences in academic engagement level of students involved in entrepreneurial
practice based on level.

1.4. RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following are questions which should be answered to guide conduct of this study:

i) what is the level of academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practice in

Ondo State?

ii) what is the difference in academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial

practice based on gender?

iii) Is there any difference in academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial

practice based on school type?

iv) what is the difference in academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial

practice based on level?

1.5. HYPOTHESIS
The following hypothesis will be tested to guide the study:

Ho1: There is no significance difference in the academic engagement of students engagement in

entrepreneurship based on gender.

Ho2: There is no significance difference in the academic engagement of students engagement in

entrepreneurship based on school type.

Ho3: There is no significance difference in the academic engagement of students engagement in

entrepreneurship based on level.

1.6. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The findings in this study will play an important role by creating awareness for the school
management, lecturers and the Students involved in entrepreneurial practices. The outcome of
the study will shed more light to the school management and lecturers on the benefits inherent in
active involvement in academic activities so as to enable the students involved in entrepreneurial
practices to benefit fully and improve their academic performance.
5
 It will motivate students involved in entrepreneurial practices to be actively involved in
various academic activities so as to improve their learning ability. The study will make the
school management to see the need to be active in the organization of the school academic
activities for positive results both in academic and social development of students.
The findings of the study will analyse the trends in the academic engagement of students
involved in entrepreneurial practices in tertiary institutions will add to the current body of
literature by informing school administrators, policymakers, and legislators with research
concerning potential inequities in academic activities of students involved in entrepreneurial
practices, school practices encouraging participation might be improved.
The information that will be provided through this study could provide administrators of
tertiary institutions with findings that might drive programmatic changes and the development of
instructional strategies to increase students involved in entrepreneurial practices levels of
participation and promote inclusive and equitable practices.

1.7 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of the study was limited to the challenges and coping strategies of adjusting to
academic engagement of students involved Entrepreneurial practices in selected tertiary
institution in Ondo State. There was limitation to students involved in entrepreneurial practices
in Ondo state Nigeria. 100 undergraduates involved in entrepreneurial practices were purposely
sampled across Ondo town. A researcher-designed questionnaire (Academic challenges and
coping strategies Questionnaire (ACCSQ) was used to elicit information from the respondents.
Data collected will be analysed with descriptive (frequency, percentage & mean),Analysis of
variance and informational statistic T-test were used to analyse data collected from study.

1.8. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Entrepreneurship: This is the process of creating or seizing an opportunity and pursuing it
regardless of the resources currently controlled.

Entrepreneurial: means willing to take risks in order to make profit.

Entrenprendre: means to undertake

6
Entrepreneurial practice: is the practice in which an individual innovates, own, finance and
manage his or her own business.

Academic Engagement: This is an indicator that combined academic identification and

academic participation.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 CONCEPT OF ENTREPRENURIAL PRACTICES

Entrepreneurship has been identified as the best solution to unemployment, underemployment
and poverty among the youths, especially in instances where educated individuals cannot find
jobs (Brownhilder 2014). It is considered as a key driver of economic growth through increase in
manpower contribution to output. The Nigerian economy is highly informal and has low
absorption capacity for educated individualsinto formal employment. This aggravates
unemployment problems especially withhuge turnout of educated persons into the labour force.
The problem is further worrisome with evidence that most educated graduates in the Nigerian
labour force are best suited for white-collar jobs; they do not possess the relevant vocational
abilities that enable engagement in entrepreneurship (Olorundare and Kayode 2014). This
deficiency in the educational system spurred the Nigerian Universities Commission
(NUC)Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurshipto draft a curriculum on entrepreneurship
studies for Nigerian universities in 2004 (Ekpoh and Edet 2011).

Aside government efforts to encourage entrepreneurship in Nigerian universities, the low-

income status of the majority of the Nigerian populace has the tendency to compel student’s
engagement in entrepreneurial activity as a form of income support. In cases where this situation
exists, there are possibly downside effects on academic performance.In examining
entrepreneurial interest, studies have mainly focused on the determinants of entrepreneurial
intention with less focus on actual engagement in entrepreneurship (Fitzsimmons and Douglas
2005; Urve et al. 2007; Ismail et al. 2009;Tong et al. 2011; Khan et al. 2011; Adnan et al. 2012;
Peng et al. 2012; Kume et al.2013; Brownhilder 2014; Malebana 2014; Khuong and An 2016;
Ayegba and Omale 2016). The emphasis, therefore, is on the inclination of an individual to start
an entrepreneurial activity in the future (Per, 1995; Gelderen et al. 2008).

Although entrepreneurial intention is the primary step towards the creation of a new venture
in the entrepreneurial process, individuals already engaged in entrepreneurship unequivocally
have a higher possibility of owning a business venture in future. There is, therefore, a dearth in

8
the literature for studies that provide findings for determinants of entrepreneurial engagement
particularly among students and whether it has any effect on academic performance. This study
contributes to existing research in the literature by examining the determinants of entrepreneurial
engagement among undergraduate students and whether such activity has any effect on academic
performance. The methodology adopted in this study also differs from approaches commonly
used in the literature. Studies in the literature among other estimation types generally made use
of the ordinary least square (OLS) regression technique for examining factors that affect
entrepreneurial intention as a binary response dependent variable. This approach lends itself to
the linear probability model (LPM).

This study adopts a different method by use of the logit model in examining the determinants
of entrepreneurial interest as a binary dependent variable. The logit, probit and LPM models are
mainly used for the analysis of binary dependent variables. However, the logit and probit models
are preferred over the LPM. This is because they provide probability figures that lie between
expected limits of 0 and 1, which sometimes is not achieved, with the LPM (Damodar 2004).
The choice of the logit over probit in this study is subjective and based on the assumption that
the data set has a logistic distribution. This study hence examined the factors that influence
student’s engagement in entrepreneurial activity and whether such involvement has any effect on
academic performance using the University of Ibadan as a case study. The study also examined
the extent of involvement in entrepreneurship across gender in order to add to existing mixed
literature findings on gender participation in entrepreneurship.

9
2.2 Theoretical background

Theoretical explanations of entrepreneurial interest abound in the literature; Becker’s(1964)

human capital theory, Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) entrepreneurial event theory, Bandura’s
(1986) theory of social learning and Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour.The human
capital theory, by Becker (1964), mainly assumes that formal education is essential and
necessary to improve the productive capacity of a population. It emphasises the role of education
in increasing the individual’s productive capacity and selfefficacy by enhancing their reasoning
capability. Entrepreneurial human capital in this light is defined in terms of an individual’s
entrepreneurial abilities and attitudes. Entrepreneurial abilities capture opportunity recognition,
viability screening and creative problem-solving skills, while entrepreneurial attitudes refer to
autonomy, risk, work and income of the individual (Douglas and Shepherd 2005).
According to Shapero and Sokol’s (1982) theory of entrepreneurial event, the desire to be
self-employed depends on the individual’s perception of desirability and feasibility in relation to
entrepreneurship. An individual first needs to see the act of selfemployment as desirable before
the formation of interest and hence engagement. Feasibility relates to an individual’s perception
of available resources; knowledge, financial support and skill. On the other hand, desirability
relates to the individual’s attitude,values and feelings, which are shaped by the social
environment consisting of family,friends and colleagues.Bandura’s (1986) social learning theory,
also referred to as social cognitive theory,identifies human behaviour as interaction of personal
factors, behavioural factors and the environment.

The focus of personal factors is on having low or high self-efficacy. Behavioural factors
refer to the reaction the individual receives after performing a particular behaviour, which could
be positive or negative. Environmental factors capture the influence from the environment in
carrying out an activity. Other theories such as Ajzen’s (1991) theory of planned behaviour
(TPB) predict that intent is dependent on three factors, which are attitude, subjective norm and
perceived behavioural control. These factors give rise to the intention and hence engagement in a
particular behaviour. Attitude is defined as the degree to which an individual has desirable or
undesirable appraisal of the behaviour in concern. It measures the value the individual places on
a behaviour type. Subjective norm, on the other hand, refers to social pressure or influence from

10
one’s parents, peers and other respected relatives to engage or not to participate in an act or
behaviour. Perceived behavioural control captures the individual’s perception of his or her ability
to perform the behaviour and if there are resources to do so.

Most studies have modelled entrepreneurial intention in line with the TPB. This is due to
the fact that the TPB is most recent among behavioural theories in the literature and encompasses
variables in other theories of entrepreneurial intention. There are mixed findings on factors that
influence entrepreneurial intention. In most cases, not all TPB variables significantly determine
the intention to own a business. For instance, in examining responses of undergraduate students
to the question of entrepreneurial interest, Adnan et al. (2012) showed that attitude and perceived
behavioural cotrol are major determinants of entrepreneurial intention with significant positive
effect. The implication, therefore, is that subjective norm has insignificant impact on
entrepreneurial intention among university undergraduate students. Study findings were provided
with simple regression analysis between entrepreneurial intention and TPB variables.

In a related study, Tong et al. (2011) using multiple regression analysis, showed that
entrepreneurial intention is predicted by the need for achievement, family business background
and subjective norm. The result suggests that students will choose to become entrepreneurs if
there is a need for achievement, when they come from a family that engages in business and if
there is support from close individuals such as family members and friends.11One study by
Khuong and An (2016) showed that prior entrepreneurial experience, external environment such
as availability of loan and access to target markets as well as perceived feasibility, positively
influenced students desire to engage in entrepreneurship in Vietnam. On the other hand, personal
traits, the need for autonomy and achievement surprisingly deter interest in entrepreneurial
engagement.

In a related study, Nguyen (2017) provides findings for the determinants of entrepreneurial
intention among international business students in Vietnam. With the use of an exploratory factor
analysis and multiple regressions, it was showed that attitude towards entrepreneurship and
perceived behavioural control are the TPB variables that had significant effect on students’
interest in entrepreneurship. This suggests that subjective norm does not have any influence on
the intention to be an entrepreneur. In Nigeria, Ayegba and Omale (2016) provide findings on
11
factors that influence entrepreneurial development among small and medium scale business
owners. Using chisquare statistics to examine responses on determinants of entrepreneurial
development, it was showed that entrepreneurship development in Nigeria depends on
environmental factors such as power supply, access to credit facility as well as modern
technology. Some studies have grouped the factors that influence entrepreneurial interest into
categories of push and pull factors1. Brownhilder (2014), for instance, showed that in Cameroon,
push factors such as unemployment, poverty and job security were predominant determinates of
students’ engagement in various forms of entrepreneurship.

In a related study, Malebana (2014) showed that students were more pulled rather than pushed
into entrepreneurship. In other words, students were interested in entrepreneurship mainly as a
result of positive factors such as the opportunity to make use of creative talents, independence
and prospects for higher earnings than through negative factors such as high prevalence of
unemployment. Studies have further showed that12entrepreneurship considerations are not
actualised as a desired career choice basically due to lack of funding, business skills, existence of
many competitors and fear of failure (Urve et al. 2007, Brownhilder 2014). In terms of gender,
findings for participation in entrepreneurship is non-uniform.There is no consensus on whether
males have higher tendency to engage in entrepreneurial activities than females and vice versa
(Ismail et al. 2009; Khan et al. 2011;Camillus and Anthony, 2014). There are, however, evidence
that the student’s course of study influences the extent of entrepreneurial participation. It is
showed that science students have the highest risk taking scores in entrepreneurship, followed by
business and arts students. Student’s exposure to entrepreneurial courses also significantly
influence entrepreneurial intention (Ismail et al. 2009; Khan et al. 2011).

In examining entrepreneurship, there are scarcity of findings on entrepreneurial engagement

and academic performance. It is evident that studies have commonly focused on the determinants
of entrepreneurial intention among students with less attention on factors that influence
engagement in entrepreneurship and whether there are interferences with academic performance.
The effect of student engagement in entrepreneurship on academic performance can be deduced
from the predictions of the theory of time use. Becker (1965) provides a framework for trade-off
of time allocation with constraints of time endowment. Becker’s (1965) theory of time use

12
assumes that the household has a particular time endowment per time, which is spent on the
production of goods produced at home. Although this theory relates to time use by household, it
also explains constraints to time allocation and opportunity cost associated with spending time
allocated to a particular activity for other purposes.

Some studies have adopted the theory of time use as a framework for modelling work hours
lost due to illness and loss in work time of females in cases of working husbands providing
reservation income (Schultz and Tansel 1997; Buchmueller and Valletta 1999, Bridges and
Lawson2008; Machio 2012; Abamba 2016). Where the student engages in business activity,time
spent on study would somewhat be reduced. This is because of possible trade-off of some
amount of study time for business activity given fixed time allocation per day.This time trade-off
arguably poses unfavourable effect on academic performance. The possible reduction in time
allocation to academic purpose for other activities such as entrepreneurial engagement is yet to
be amply explored in the literature. In the United States, it was showed that time spent working
does not affect the academic performance of college students. This finding is contrary to
theoretical underpinnings of the theory of time use and popular belief of constraints in study time
for working students (Nonis and Hudson 2006).

2.3 Conceptual framework

2.3.1 The growing relevance of student entrepreneurs

The focus of our study is on student entrepreneurship, defined as venture creation activities of
people who are currently studying at a university. There are at least three reasons why this type
of entrepreneurship deserves our attention. First, young people and especially students generally
hold a strong interest in an entrepreneurial career (Sieger, Fueglistaller, & Zellweger, 2011).
Many students are ambitious and like to try out different things while studying. It can be argued
that the university is an ideal context for testing one’s entrepreneurial capabilities (Houser,
2014). Secondly, research undertaken at universities serves as source of knowledge that creates
new entrepreneurial opportunities which can lead 13to the formation of innovative new firms
(Audretsch & Lehmann, 2005). In recent decades, universities in a large number of countries
changed their strategic behaviour and aimed at exploiting these opportunities , thus, transforming

13
into what Etzkowitz et al. (2000) named the „entrepreneurial university“. Related to the triple-
helix model of university-industry-government relations (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 1997), these
paradigmatic changes of a university’s role in the regional innovation system have contributed to
the growing relevance of start-ups that have become an explicit, strategic goal of many
universities and governments’ higher education policies. While previous literature has mainly
investigated start-ups of faculty and staff, i.e. academic entrepreneurship, student start-ups also
contribute substantially to a knowledge transfer from the university to the market (Åstebro et al.,
2012).

The turnover of students ensures the role of the university as a constant source of innovation
(Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). Thirdly, the role of the university is increasingly seen as
broader than just to generate technology transfer. Audretsch (2014: 320) argues that in the
entrepreneurial society the university should “provide thinking, leadership and activity to
enhance entrepreneurship capital”. More and more, universities and other educational institutions
try to equip their students with the necessary knowledge and skills for starting a business or
acting entrepreneurially in other ways. In the past two decades there has been a dramatic increase
in the number of entrepreneurship-related courses in the U.S. and in Europe (European
Commission, 2012; Hoppe, 2015; Kuratko, 2005). By offering entrepreneurship courses,
training, and extra-curricular support, universities aim at creating a supportive context for
entrepreneurship, thereby enhancing students’ motivation and capability for starting a business
(Walter et al., 2013). While students typically do not start a business directly after completing
their studies, they might do so at a later stage in their career (Wennberg et al., 2011). Gathering
entrepreneurial experience during their studies can be assumed to facilitate subsequent start-up
endeavours of students and graduates. 14

2.3.2 The context dimension of students’ business creation

Entrepreneurial activities do not happen in isolation but take place in a social,
organizational and spatial context (Autio, Kenney, Mustar, Siegel, & Wright, 2014; Welter,
2011). For people in organizations, context has been defined as “situational opportunities and
constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organizational behaviour” (Johns, 2006).
Previous research on student entrepreneurs has largely neglected its organizational and spatial

14
context, i.e. the characteristics of the university and the 15region where people study. As argued
above, universities more or less actively support entrepreneurial activities of their staff and
students, for example by offering entrepreneurship courses. While the individual effects of
participating in an entrepreneurship course have been broadly investigated (Martin et al., 2013),
the possible broader effects of these programs on other students are still largely unclear.

Overall, empirical evidence about the university’s impact on students’ entrepreneurial

intentions or activities is rare: Walter et al. (2013) show that organizational-level factors like the
availability of entrepreneurship education and industry ties increase entrepreneurial intentions of
male university students, whereas research orientation of the department has a negative effect.
Geissler (2013) finds a positive effect of the perceived entrepreneurial climate at universities on
students’ entrepreneurial intentions. Yet, both of these studies focus on intentions rather than
activities and investigate a limited number of universities only. Besides the organizational
context, the regional context is also important because start-ups have to acquire resources and
find customers (Davidsson & Honig, 2003; Mosey & Wright, 2007) which can typically only be
obtained from outside the university. The regional environment is arguably the most frequently
observed spatial context in entrepreneurship research (see M. P. Feldman, 2001 and her regional
event argument, see also Sternberg (2009) for overviews on regional entrepreneurship).

. Here, ‘regional’ is understood as the spatial level below the national but above the local one.
Defined in that way, scholars increasingly consider it as an important part of the environment
that influences an individual’s decision to start a firm (Audretsch & Lehmann, 2005; Bosma &
Schutjens, 2011; Casper, 2013; Lawton Smith & Bagchi-Sen, 2012). The relevance of the
regional economic dimension results from the empirical observation that individuals generally
launch start-ups where they were born, work or live (Stam, 2009) – and that that these
entrepreneurs are more successful with their new firm than those who move to another region to
start their firm (Dahl & Sorenson, 2012; Michelacci & Silva, 2007). Regional factors include
cultural, social, political, infrastructural, and financial characteristics as well as the system of
education and research. Concerning entrepreneurship, agglomeration economies originating from
the existence and dominance of specific industries within the relevant regions (Shane, 2003) and
regional economic prosperity are particularly important (Sternberg, 2009). 15

15
2.3. 3 The process dimension of students’ business creation
The venture gestation process is dependent on characteristics of the founder and the venture
idea and takes place in a specific context (Davidsson, 2015)

.While it seems reasonable to assume that contextual influences are important for
entrepreneurial activities in general and, specifically, those of students, there are also indications
that their relative importance varies over the entrepreneurial process and for different types of
venture ideas (Hundt & Sternberg, 2014; Vohora, Wright, & Lockett, 2004). Thus, we take a
process perspective in our paper by considering different starting points and phases of the
entrepreneurial process. First, we distinguish between different sources of the venture idea.
According to a broadly accepted view, the entrepreneurial discovery process starts with the
conception of a venture idea that can change and become more and more elaborate over time
(Bhave, 1994; Davidsson, 2003). Beliefs and action work together to cause path dependency in
the opportunity recognition and evaluation stages (Shepherd, McMullen, & Jennings, 2007). In
this evolutionary perspective, the initial venture idea can have a lasting impact on the formation
of a new business because – although being evolving, usually implicit and incomplete – the idea
gives direction when attempting to create new economic activities (Davidsson, 2015).

For student start-ups, it is important to distinguish between venture ideas from study or
research, i.e. from within the university, and ideas from outside the university because they are
likely to differ concerning their innovativeness, market anchorage, and knowledge transfer.
Second, we distinguish between nascent entrepreneurship and the establishment of a new
business. A nascent entrepreneur can be described as a person who has taken first steps towards
setting up a business which is not operating yet (Carter et al., 1996). However, not every effort to
start a new business will result in a new venture (Brixy, Sternberg, & Stüber, 2012). Only some
nascent entrepreneurs will manage to form a new operating business and can then be described
as new business owner-manager(s) or, in short, new entrepreneur(s). Some years after firm birth,
a business is usually considered as established and not as new anymore.Overall, we conceptually
and empirically study university students’ entrepreneurial behaviour from a multi-level
perspective. Similar to previous conceptualizations (Djokovic & Souitaris, 2008), we include
determinants on three different levels: the micro-level, i.e. the student with his or her personal
characteristics and family background, the university faculty as organizational context, and the
16
regional 17context. We argue that these three levels have a simultaneous – and partially
interdependent – impact on a students’ entrepreneurial activity. We also distinguish between two
different sources of the venture idea and two stages of the gestation process. Based on this
theoretical framework we now turn to the development of specific hypotheses.

2. 4 Drivers of student entrepreneurship

According to Venkataraman (1997), entrepreneurial activity is a function of the nexus of two

phenomena: the presence of lucrative opportunities and the presence of enterprising individuals.
While entrepreneurship studies often place the individual at the center of the analysis, these same
individuals are often influenced and shaped by the nature of opportunities (Radosevic and Yoruk,
2013). These aspects are now explored in further detail. By carrying out an extensive literature
review, we aim at integrating theoretical and empirical propositions oriented toward identifying
the key elements that explain the entrepreneurial activity of students.

2. 4. 1 Individual vectors
We begin our assessment by addressing theoretical and empirical evidence on five individual
factors related to entrepreneurial propensity in students: age, family income, family culture,
STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) profile, and level of enrollment
(undergraduate vs graduate). Previous research has pinpointed the relevance of individual
characteristics in promoting student entrepreneurship (Guerrero et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017),
and how they shape students’ perceptions of opportunities (Shane, 2000). Individual factors
involve the social and cultural conditions, as well as the previous experience with entrepreneurial
activities, that influence the entrepreneurial potential of the students (Iizuka and Moraes, 2014).
However, as the literature highlights in further depth, empirical findings are controversial,
making it difficult to establish clear patterns that attach individual characteristics to
entrepreneurial behavior.

As a first aspect of interest, students’ age represents a relevant driver of entrepreneurial

behavior. According to Lévesque and Minniti (2011), there are opportunity costs associated with
different age groups. With fewer resources, younger individuals can absorb more easily the
uncertainty that arises with new ventures. Conversely, older individuals have much more to lose

17
by forgoing seniority wages in favor of risky returns. Also, the university environment can
provide younger students with the necessary resources they lack to initiate their first
entrepreneurial trials. Accordingly, empirical results indicate that university students between 25
and 34 years of age are those with the highest probability to engage in entrepreneurial activities
(Liñán et al., 2011; Reynolds et al., 2002).

Urbano et al. (2017) have also found a similar association between age and entrepreneurial
propensity. In its turn, aspects related to family income are also expected to be connected to the
dynamics of entrepreneurial activity (Radosevic and Yoruk, 2013). Cuervo (2005) and
Steier(2007) assert that the family is a source of information, complementary resources,
funds,18managerial capabilities, networks and guarantees for the entrepreneur. Thus, it can be
assumed that family income is likely to provide an easier access for initial venture funding for
students to experiment with their entrepreneurial initiatives. Along these lines, studies indicate
that, within some ethnic communities, families do provide a great deal of financial capital
(Aldrich and Waldinger, 1990). Following Aldrich and Langton (1998) and Zellweger et al.
(2011), families play an important role in the resource mobilization process during the startup
stage. Also, family income helps to reduce transaction costs associated with the establishment of
relationships and acquisition of investment (Cuervo, 2005).

On the other hand, these assumptions do not go without empirical dispute (Aldrich et al.,
1998). For instance, entrepreneurial activity can be seen as a way out of low-income situations,
as suggested by Urbano et al. (2017).Family income, however, provides only a partial view on
the potential impacts that close relatives may have upon the students’ engagement regarding the
establishment of new ventures. Moving beyond availability of financial resources, businesses are
often embedded in family culture and relations (Aldrich and Cliff, 2003). Urbano et al. (2017)
have identified a positive role of family culture in shaping the propensity of students to engage in
launching new ventures, an aspect that had also been highlighted by Cramton (1993). In this
sense,family background can be considered as a significant predictor for entrepreneurial
behavior, given that students who have entrepreneurs among family members present a stronger
inclination for self-employment (Scott and Twomey, 1988).

18
 However, although students with a family business background are optimistic about their
respective capabilities and resources, they also seem pessimistic about controlling their careers
as entrepreneurs – a finding related to the obstacles and personal sacrifices experienced by their
parents (Zellweger et al., 2011). Beyond culture, family members may also share biological
characteristics that drive attitudes toward entrepreneurship. According to Shane (2010), studies
on adoption provide evidence of the effect of genes on work interests where “biologically related
members tend to have similar job preferences, while adopted family members do not” (p. 53).
This may influence the propensity of family members to take the entrepreneurial career path.The
nature and source of knowledge is also a factor of interest in this analysis, as it can allow
entrepreneurs to recognize technological and market opportunities (Kor et al., 2007).

Radosevic and Yoruk (2013) state that knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship constitutes

not only an ordinary activity of innovation systems but one of its core properties. A similar
perspective is shared by Ács et al. (2014). Accordingly, individuals’ knowledge intensity
warrants the possibility of identifying and responding to technological opportunities. For these
reasons, STEM areas are traditionally associated with high-impact entrepreneurship.Nonetheless,
students from these fields of knowledge are highly demanded by incumbent firms. This creates a
paradoxical situation in which knowledge-intensive individuals face a strong competition
between the market for entrepreneurship and the market for jobs. This situation potentially harms
new enterprises to emerge in both high- and low-tech sectors (Delmar and Wennberg, 2010).

Finally, students enrolled in graduate programs often take on entrepreneurial efforts through
spinoffs related to academic research. Hayter et al. (2017), for instance, present the creation of
Google as one academic spinoff of this kind. Hayter (2016) also finds that graduate students play
a critical role in the early stages of the spinoff development. It is suggested, therefore, that the
level of academic enrollment positively affects the entrepreneurial intention of students (Liñán et
al., 2011), even though these propositions do not go unchallenged: Uhlaner and Thurik (2005)
found higher levels of education to be associated with lower rates of self-employment.19

2.4.2 Systemic vectors.

Entrepreneurial activity is a social phenomenon, dependent on structural features of the
economic system and on social processes and mechanisms(Radosevic and Yoruk, 2013). These
19
factors shape the “entrepreneurial orientation” of innovation systems, i.e. their capacity to
generate and exploit opportunities. This systemic nature involves not only individuals, but also
socioeconomic and institutional aspects, whereas the productivity of an entrepreneurial system is
affected by the performance of any of its components (Ács et al., 2014).For instance, changes in
legislation and regulatory frameworks at the national and university levels can enhance levels of
entrepreneurial activity within academic contexts (Fini et al., 2017). This evidence pinpoints the
importance of supporting actors and structures for the generation of student entrepreneurs
(Wright et al., 2017).

However, it is worth noting that causal ambiguity is strongly present in these dynamics,
making it hard for practitioners to know in advance which initiatives will render the expected
results. Ultimately, this leads to a lack of agreement on the role played by specific instruments in
fostering student entrepreneurship. Some of these features of the academic environment are
analyzed in this section. First, characteristics of geographic regions have been associated with
student entrepreneurship as they set the basic market conditions for the emergence of new
ventures (Hayter et al., 2017). Agglomeration economies provide entrepreneurial systems with
larger pools of individuals that can engage in the generation of new ventures, as well as the
supply of complementary productive inputs, resources and positive externalities (Glaeser and
Kerr,2009).A related aspect concerns the efficiency gap that exists in peripheral regions in
comparison with central regions, indicating the existence of agglomeration economies for the
entrepreneurial activity (Fritsch, 2002).Accordingly, the location of universities within urban
agglomerations represents an important analytical vector to understand the entrepreneurial
activity of students.

As universities operate in different local and regional contexts, there is a need to explore
how they adopt different strategies for academic entrepreneurship (Fini et al., 2011; Packham et
al.,2010). On the other hand, we must consider the differential aspects of the geography of
entrepreneurship taking place in developing economies. Fischer et al. (2018a) find that highly
dense urban agglomerations may hamper the potential of knowledge-intensive entrepreneurship,
a function of the high levels of agglomeration diseconomies in these laggard nations.Second, the
quality of research undertaken by universities has demonstrated significant impacts on

20
institutions’ capabilities of generating student entrepreneurship (Wright et al.,2017). Di Gregorio
and Shane (2003) identify that the intellectual eminence of universities functions as a key
predictor of startups.

Thus, it is assumed that research-intensive universities can positively affect the generation
of new businesses by students, with special emphasis on innovation-driven ventures (Rocha and
Freitas, 2014). Hence, University quality is expected to exert a positive influence on the quality
and rate of entrepreneurial activity, considering the relevance of the technological environment
on the performance of young firms (Laursen Reichstein and Salter, 2011; Tischler, 2014).
Analogous findings have been reported on the Brazilian environment by Fischer et al. (2018b).In
addition to research intensity and quality, universities also engage in more direct strategies
targeted at fostering entrepreneurial activities. These support initiatives often involve internal
policies, processes and infrastructure that seek to stimulate students to start21new businesses.
Henrekson and Rosenberg (2001) find that such approaches contribute to the survival and growth
of new ventures. Jansen et al. (2015) identify three major categories of initiatives: education (for
awakening dormant entrepreneurs), stimulation (to support students in starting a business) and
incubation (to drive young companies to independence).

Along these lines, empirical evidence identifies positive impacts of entrepreneurship

education programs and training activities (Bae et al., 2014; Fayolle and Liñán, 2014; Liñán et
al., 2011; Liñán and Fayolle, 2015; Urbano et al., 2017). The key role of educational programs is
to increase student awareness and to highlight the entrepreneurial path as a viable career option
(Donckels, 1991). Other contents such as entrepreneurship obstacles, skills, and the methods
involved in the creation of a new startup are also addressed in entrepreneurship courses (Liñán et
al., 2011). However, when these activities are restricted to the preparation of business plans, for
example, the effects are negative in fostering entrepreneurial intention (Carrier, 2005).Besides
the simple implementation of entrepreneurship courses, favorable impacts are also related to the
coordination of entrepreneurship programs and other mechanisms at the university level, such as
business competitions and outreach activities (Boh et al., 2015). In this sense, the university
environment can shape the conditions for student entrepreneurship to thrive through the

21
promotion of events, workshops, junior companies and student organizations that cultivate
entrepreneurial practices (Moraes et al., 2018).

Complementarily, university-level structures for commercialization of research and

business opportunities are defined as potential drivers of student entrepreneurship (Wright et al.,
2017). The relevance of incubators and science parks as supporting mechanisms for startups is
highlighted by Fini et al. (2011), Feldman (2001) and Wright et al. (2017). In the Brazilian case,
empirical findings show evidence in favor of such sort of academic provisions (Fischer et al.,
2018b). However, while there is a widespread belief that university support for student
entrepreneurship generates desirable effects (Feola et al., 2017), the evaluation of its impacts
across the literature provides mixed outcomes (Guerrero et al.,2017).Within the university
context, students can also benefit from the exchange of ideas with experienced faculty members
and alumni (Wright et al., 2017). Hence, the availability of mentoring programs is another
important support activity for student entrepreneurs.

Mentoring is defined as “one-to-one learning relationship between an older person and a

younger person that is based on modeling behavior and extended dialogue” (Lester and Johnson,
1981, p. 50). According to Blackwell (1989), mentoring is a process by which people of superior
rank, special achievements, and prestige, instruct, counsel, guide, and facilitate the career
development of protégés. St-Jean and Audet (2012) find that mentoring benefits include an
increase in management skills, improved vision for business ventures and ability to identify new
opportunities. Beyond that, mentoring programs generate knowledge about what it means to be
an entrepreneur and about what activities and processes this activity involves, also introducing
students to business networks (Gibb, 1998).

Delving deeper into this rationale, entrepreneurial ventures are relational by nature,involving
the formation of networks by the nascent entrepreneur and depending on existing levels of trust
among agents (Stam, 2009). This is so because networks between academics and other agents of
the entrepreneurial ecosystem increase the capacity of students to identify business opportunities,
increasing students’ chances for success in launching new ventures (Bienkowska et al., 2016;
Liñán and Santos, 2007; Liñán et al., 2011). It follows that the very location of entrepreneurs is
bounded by the availability of social networks that can grant access to a relevant knowledge base
22
(Feldman, 2001). Consequently, some authors have put strong emphasis on what is called
‘entrepreneurial support networks’, i.e. agents23that offer complementary services to the activity
of entrepreneurial ventures (Kenney and Patton, 2005). Ultimately, by connecting entrepreneurs
to other agents, these linkages make for social connections that enhance growth potential of
entrepreneurial ventures (Bruederl and Preisendoerfer, 1998). Accordingly, universities can spur
entrepreneurship among its students by developing initiatives that aim at engaging students in
external networks(Wright et al., 2017).

2.5 Barriers to the advancement of student entrepreneurship

Factors for the advancement of student entrepreneurship should be identified against the
background of barriers to entrepreneurship found in the economy. Literature frequently refers to
the main five categories of barriers identified by the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development,
which are legal, economic, managerial, educational and social. The very same barriers have been
identified in a variety of reports published by the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development and
in a number of scientific studies. Small and medium-sized business owners frequently point to
difficulties accessing third party capital as a major inhibitor of entrepreneurshi23A study by K.
Dąbrowska and M. Skowron found that young people rarely notice good opportunities for
starting a business in their environments. Therefore, one of the main responsibilities of
institutions of higher education should be to promote entrepreneurship by encouraging young
people to take advantage of the opportunities by starting their own businesses. To make that
possible, it is vital that an entrepreneurship-friendly atmosphere be created in the market
environment not only at the regional but also the local level,thereby strengthening the resolve of
potential entrepreneurs. 23

2. 6 Student motivations to start/run a business

A number of systems are available for classifying drivers for the establishment and
advancement of entrepreneurship, including student entrepreneurship. One of them, 23designed
by D. Piróg, resulted from an overview of multiple perspectives on the issue. Piróg’s
classification refers to both external factors: (1) basic macroeconomic indicators, and (2) social
influences – the social capital, as well as external variables: (3) competences and qualifications –
education and experience, and (4) the personal traits of individuals[19].Research conducted by

23
the students of the Pedagogical University of Kraków has identified a plethora of factors that
affect young people’s entrepreneurial intent. In keeping with planned behaviour theory, some of
the most important of them are views on private enterprise, the propensity to take risks,
subjective public perceptions of private enterprise, the self-perceived effectiveness in business
ventures and early exposure to business within one’s family [20].

The participants in the research carried out by the article’s author pointed not only to
barriers to but also to factors that foster the starting and running of one’s own enterprise (they
were asked to select the top three factors). The students’ choices of the three most influential
drivers of student entrepreneurship are provided in the Table below.

Table:. Key incentives to start and run a business

Entrepreneurship driver Percentage of responses(%)

Opportunity to earn higher income 73.5

Opportunity to pursue one's passions 65.7

Independence ("no boss") 60.8

Opportunity to balance work and personal life 49.2

Necessity (no jobs available) 4.8

Access to state support available under 4.2

economic policies

Source: field work 2023

The bulk of research on entrepreneurship points to the opportunity to earn a higher income
as the top driver of entrepreneurship. The income factor was also the incentive most frequently
selected by the student respondents to this study. The second most commonly chosen factor
behind business start-up was the chance to pursue one’s passion, the third:independence. Such

24
findings are consistent with the overall profile of the so called generation Z, which is currently
entering the labour market and to which the majority of the respondents belong. This
demographic cohort is highly mobile, individually-minded,creative and valuing self-
improvement and independence. Note also that a substantial proportion of the respondents
(39.2%) selected the opportunity to balance one’s work and personal life. This emphasis can be
associated with the fact that the study sample was comprised of predominantly female
respondents. For the sake of comparison, an impressive 30.7% chose limited time for personal
life as a factor discouraging them from starting a business.

As noted earlier, students’ attitudes towards entrepreneurship are largely affected by their
social backgrounds, including exposure to enterprise pursued by either their family members and
close friends. The study conducted for the purposes of this publication showed that 24% of the
respondents did not know closely anyone who ran their own company. 45% of the students came
from families whose close members (parents,grandparents, siblings, aunts or uncles) owned their
own businesses whereas 31% indicated that an extended family member or a close friend was a
business proprietor. The conclusion therefore is that exposure to the business experience in one’s
family had little effect on encouraging students to set up their own ventures. Perhaps being
witness to the hard work and constant strife against many odds (including a rather unfriendly tax
system) as well as the recent decline in unemployment in Poland discourages young people from
engaging in their own business pursuits.

2.7. CONCEPT OF ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT

Over the last seven decades, researchers and educators have exhibited a growing interest in
the concept of engagement as a way to improve disaffection, to avert student boredom, to
enhance students’ motivation and involvement in school-related activities, to increase successful
student achievement levels, and to understand students’ positive development (Appleton,
Christenson, & Furlong, 2008; Carter, Reschly, Lovelace, Appleton, & Thompson, 2012;
Fredricks et al., 2004; Li & Lerner, 2011; National Research Council & Institute of Medicine,
2004; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Engagement is also a valuable construct for capturing
the gradual process by which students drop out from school (Appleton et al., 2008; Appleton,
Christenson, Kim, &Reschly, 2006; Finn, 1989). Given that students’ dropping out from school

25
is not an instantaneous event, but rather a gradual process that happens over time, researchers
and educators alike view engagement as the main theoretical model for intervening with and
understanding potential dropouts to enhance positive performance and encourage school
completion (Appleton et al., 2008; Appleton et al., 2006). 26

Engagement is a prominent theoretical orientation that has received great attention from
educators and researchers. This article provides a literature overview of the engagement
construct pertaining to its various definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. In
addition, the review sheds light on two major approaches to engagement in the current literature:
one entails students’ cognitive, behavioural, and emotional engagement (Fredricks, Blumenfeld,
& Paris, 2004), and the other approach is characterised by vigor, dedication,and absorption
(Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Rom, & Bakker, 20

2.7.1. What Is Engagement

Engagement is a complex term that emphasises students’ various patterns in motivation,
cognition, and behaviour (Appleton et al., 2008; Baron & Corbin, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004;
Phan & Ngu, 2014a; Sharma & Bhaumik, 2013). Researchers have investigated the construct
extensively in the last seven decades, and the literature generally reflects substantial variations in
its terms, definitions, and coverage (Appleton et al., 2008; Baron & Corbin, 2012; Fredricks et
al., 2004; Klem & Connell, 2004; Sharma & Bhaumik, 2013; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013).
Different researchers have offered various terms and coverage of engagement such as school
engagement (e.g., Fredricks et al., 2004), study engagement (e.g., Schaufeli et al., 2002), and
student course engagement (e.g., Handelsman, Briggs, Sullivan, & Towler, 2005). Examples of
these variations and their corresponding definitions offered by scholars in the literature are
provided in Table below.

Table 1. Examples of variations in terms and definitions of engagement

Authors Construct Name Definition

Audas & Willms (2002) Engagement The extent to which a student participates
in academic- and non-academic related
activities as well as identifies with and
26
 values the goals of studying.
Skinner, Kindermann, & Engagement The quality of students’ participation or
Furrer (2009) connection with the schooling endeavour
and hence with activities, values, people,
goals, and place that comprise it.
Skinner, Wellborn, & Engagement A student’s initiation of effort, action, and
Connell persistence in schoolwork as well as his
(1990) ambient emotional states during learning
activities
Willms (2003) Student Engagement The extent to which a student values
at School school-related outcomes and identifies with
and participates in academic and non-
academic school activities
Newmann, Wehlage, & Student Engagement Students’ psychological effort and
Lamborn in Academic Work investment toward learning, understanding,
(1992) or mastering the skills, crafts, or
knowledge that the schoolwork is intended
to promote
Wehlage, Rutter, Smith, Educational The psychological investment needed to
Lesko, & Fernandez Engagement master and understand skills and
knowledge explicitly taught in educational
institutions.
Kuh (2003) Student Engagement. The energy and time a student devotes to
educational sound activities outside and
inside classrooms, and practices and
policies that educational institutions use to
encourage the student to participate in these
activities.
Schaufeli, Salanova, Study Engagement A fulfilling and positive study-related state
Gonzalez-Rom, & Bakker of mind that is characterised by absorption,
(2002) vigor, and dedication
Christenson, Reschly, Student Engagement Students’ investment in and commitment to
Appleton, Berman-Young, learning, belonging and identification at
Spanjers & Varro (2008) school, and participation in the institution
environment and initiation of activities to
achieve an outcome.

The table shows, as mentioned earlier, some examples of a plethora of engagement terms and
definitions. Despitetheir variations, some similar themes have been noted between the definitions
across the researchers. For example, the definitions proposed by Audas and Willms (2002),
Skinner et al. (2009), Skinner et al. (1990), and Willms (2003) emphasised students’
participation and identification with school and school-related activities.The definitions by
27
Newmann et al. (1992) and Wehlage et al. (1989) drew a link between engagement and students’
psychological investment in learning. While Kuh’s (2003) definition of the concept focused upon
the link between engagement and energy, Schaufeli et al. (2002) emphasised students’
motivational mindset related to their study activities that is characterised by dedication, vigor,
and absorption. Christenson et al. (2008), in turn, have outlined a general definition of the notion,
involving aspects mentioned in the earlier definitions and emphasising students’ participation,
commitment, investment, and identification with schooling and school-related activities. Finally,
while a myriad of terms and definitions have been proffered, engagement is broadly a positive
and proactive term that captures students’ quality of participation, investment, commitment,and
identification with school and school-related activities to enhance students’ performance.

2.7.2: Dimensions of Engagement

Although engagement is relatively diverse in its definitions and coverage, researchers have
reached a consensus that the construct is multidimensional and encompasses different aspects
(e.g., behavioural, cognitive, and emotional), operating together to reflect students’ positive
approach to learning (Appleton et al., 2008; Carter et al., 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004; Phan,
2014b; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). However, researchers have
consistently disagreed on the types and number of the dimensions of engagement (Appleton et
al., 2008; Fredricks et al., 2004; Li & Lerner, 2011; Schaufeli et al., 2002). For example, the
work of Schaufeli et al. (2002) conceptualised engagement as having three dimensions (i.e.,
vigor, dedication, and absorption), as opposed to Willms (2003) who identified two components
of the construct (i.e., behavioural and psychological). Table 2 presents some examples of the
variations in number and types of dimensions that researchers have proposed in their models for
the construct.

Dimensional variations across models of engagement

Authors. Engagement Dimensions

Finn (1989) (a) Behavioural (Participation): participation in classrooms

and school . activities (e.g., doing assignments and responding
28
 to teachers’ questions).

(b) Emotional (Identification): feeling of belonging in school

and valuing learning-related outcomes.

Audas & Willms (2002) (a) Behavioural: Participating in school-related activities (e.g.,
attending class, completing homework, and taking part in
extra-curricular activities such as sports).

(b) Psychological: Involves aspects such as sense of

belonging, relationships with teachers and peers, and valuing
school outcomes.

Willms (2003) (a) Behavioural: Participating in academic and non-academic

school-related activities (e.g., attending class, completing
homework, and taking part in extra-curricular activities such
as sports).

(b) Psychological: Sense of attachment or belonging to

school, and valuing school outcome.

Fredricks et al. (2004) (a) Behavioural: (e.g., student’s participation in academic and
extracurricular activities).

(b) Emotional: (e.g., student’s positive and negative reaction

to peers, teachers, and schools).

(c) Cognitive: (e.g., student’s thoughtfulness and willingness

to master difficult skills).

Jimerson, Campos, & Greif (a) Affective: Feelings about the educational institutions,
(2003). teachers, and peers (e.g., positive sense towards peers).

(b) Behavioural: Involves students’ observable performance

and action (e.g., assignment completion, grade point average,

29
 and extracurricular activities such as sports).

(c) Cognitive: Involves students’ beliefs and perceptions

related to self, academic institutions, teachers, and peers.

Schaufeli et al. (2002) (a) Vigor: persistence, resilience, and effort in the face of
difficulties.

(b) Absorption: engrossment in tasks and activities of

learning.

(c) Dedication: inspiration, pride, and enthusiasm in academic

learning30

Appleton et al. (2006) 30 (a) Academic: reflected by indicators such as time on task,
homework completion, and credit earned toward graduation.
(b) Behavioural: (e.g., attendance, classroom participation,
suspensions, and participation in extracurricular activities).

(c) Psychological: (e.g., having sense of belonging or

identification, and relationships with peers and teachers).

(d) Cognitive: (e.g., self-regulated learning, valuing of

learning, perceived relevance of school to future endeavours,
autonomy, and personal goals).

Reeve & Tseng (2011) (a) Behavioural: student’s involvement in learning activities
such as effort, persistence, and attention.

(b) Emotional: student’s presence of enthusiasm and interest,

lack of anger, boredom, and anxiety.

(c) Cognitive: student’s use of active self-regulation and

sophisticated learning strategies.

30
 (d) Agentic: student’s constructive contribution toward the
flow of the instruction he receives.

31Based on the Table above, engagement is typically conceptualised as having two, three, or
four dimensions. Researchers (e.g., Audas & Willms, 2002; Finn, 1989, Willms, 2003) adopting
a two-dimensional model have included behavioural (e.g., participation in academic and non-
academic activities) and psychological (e.g., identification with school, valuing learning
outcomes, and belonging) subtypes in their conceptualisation of the construct (Appleton et al.,
2008). Fredricks et al. (2004) and Jimerson et al. (2003) have proposed a tripartite model that
includes a cognitive dimension (e.g., thoughtfulness and willingness to master difficult tasks), as
well as the psychological and behavioural subtypes. Schaufeli et al. (2002), similarly, adopted
three dimensions, but labelled these components as dedication, vigor, and absorption (Appleton
et al., 2008; Bakker, Vergel, & Kuntze, 2015; Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014; Upadyaya
& Salmela-Aro, 2013).

Appleton et al. (2006) and Reeve and Tseng (2011) have, in addition, proposed a fourth
dimension of engagement. Appleton et al. (2006) called the fourth dimension ‘academic
engagement’, which includes aspects such as completing assignments and time on task.
However, most previous studies have subsumed this dimension (i.e., academic) under
behavioural engagement (Appleton et al., 2008; Coleman, 2012; Fredricks & McColskey, 2012).
On the other hand, Reeve 31and Tseng (2011) proposed the agentic dimension as a new aspect of
the engagement construct; however, much more research is required to validate this new concept
(Sinatra, Heddy, & Lombardi, 2015). While theorists have posited conceptualisations of
engagement with two, three, and four sub-dimensions, the models of Fredricks et al. (2004) (also
called the North American model) and Schaufeli et al. (2002) (known as the European approach
of engagement) (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013) have been pivotal in understanding the
multidimensional nature of the engagement construct.

The importance of these two models is that the engagement construct addresses central and
related facets of individual development (i.e., motivation, cognition, and behaviour), unlike other

31
models (e.g., Finn, 1989; Willms, 2003) that lack, for example, the emphasis on one of these
facets (i.e., cognition) (Archambault, Janosz, Fallu, & Pagani, 2009; Phan & Ngu, 2014a). In
addition,these two models have been widely adopted, and received considerable attention in
terms of validation and empirical examination (e.g., Archambault, Janosz, Morizot, & Pagani,
2009; Breso, Schaufeli, & Salanova, 2011;Janosz, Archambault, Morizot, & Pagani, 2008; Mo &
Singh, 2008; Phan, 2014a, 2014c; Phan & Ngu, 2014a; Salmela-Aro, Tolvanen, & Nurmi, 2009;
Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, 2014; Vasalampi, Salmela-Aro, & Nurmi,2009; Wang & Fredricks,
2014; Wang, Willett, & Eccles, 2011). The following paragraphs provide additional detail about
each model.

32
2.8 Fredricks et al.’s (2004) Model of Engagement

In their comprehensive review of engagement literature, Fredricks et al. (2004)

describe engagement as a malleable, developing, and multidimensional construct that consists
of three broad dimensions: behavioural,cognitive, and emotional. The dimensions, according
to the authors, are not isolated but interrelate with each other.

2.8.1 Behavioural Engagement

According to Fredricks et al. (2004), three ways are commonly utilised in defining
behavioural engagement (Finn 1993; Finn, Pannozzo, & Voelkl, 1995; Finn & Rock, 1997;
Skinner & Belmont, 1993), which Rumberger (2004) found to be a crucial factor in mediating
the dropout process. The first way involves positive conduct, such as adhering to the norms of
the classroom, following the rules, and refraining from engaging in disruptive behaviours
(e.g., being troublesome or skipping school) (Finn & Rock, 1997; Fredricks et al., 2004). The
second way pertains to participation in learning and academic-related tasks, and involves
behaviours such as discussion contribution, asking questions, paying attention, concentrating,
exhibiting persistence, and putting forth effort (Fredricks et al., 2004; Finn et al., 1995;
Skinner & Belmont, 1993). The third and last way, according to Finn (1993) and Finn et al.
(1995), is the involvement in activities related to school that include, for example, school
governance and sports (Fredricks et al., 2004). Therefore, behavioural engagement is a
directly observable dimension of engagement, and the salient indicators of this dimension
include truancy, preparation for school,attendance, participation in curricular and
extracurricular tasks, and discipline referrals (Appleton et al., 2008; Fredricks et al., 2004;
Reschly & Christenson, 2006).

2.8.2 Cognitive Engagement

The cognitive engagement dimension refers to students’ investment in learning, and involves
aspects such as willingness and thoughtfulness to expend the effort required to understand and
master difficult tasks, the use of appropriate learning strategies (e.g., students’ use of elaboration
rather than memorisation), challenge preference, and self-regulation (Fredricks et al., 2004).
Indicators of cognitive engagement include asking questions for clarification of ideas,

33
persistence in difficult activities, flexibility in problem solving, use of learning strategies (e.g.,
relating new information to existing information), and use of self-regulation to support learning
(Finn & Zimmer, 2012; Fredricks et al., 2004).

2.8.3 Emotional Engagement

Scholars have variously identified emotional engagement as motivational engagement (e.g.,
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003), psychological engagement (e.g., Finn, 1993), and affective
engagement (e.g., Archambault et al., 2009). However, all of these terms refer to the same
features of emotional engagement, which describes students’ positive and negative emotional
reactions toward teachers, classmates, academic works, and school in general (Fredricks et al.,
2004). It includes indicators such as the presence of interest and happiness and the lack of
boredom, anxiety, and sadness. Further, students exhibiting emotional engagement have a sense
of identification with and belonging to the school, value school outcomes, and feel as though
they are supported by their peers and teachers (Fredricks et al., 2004)34

2.9 Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) Model of Engagement

Engagement, according to Schaufeli et al. (2002), is defined as a fulfilling and positive study-
related state of 34mind that is characterised by three dimensions: absorption, vigor, and
dedication (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Initially,the notion of engagement was conceptualised as
work-related engagement, but recently this concept has been expanded to include the notion of
study engagement (Ouweneel, Le Blanc, & Schaufeli, 2014; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Upadyaya &
Salmela-Aro, 2013). Schaufeli and his colleagues (e.g., Breso et al., 2011; Ouweneel, Le Blanc,
& Schaufeli, 2011; Ouweneel, Schaufeli, & Le Blanc, 2013) have argued that, from a
psychological point of view, a student’s tasks and activities can be considered ‘work’. Like an
employee, the student is involved in coercive, structured tasks and activities (e.g., completing
assignments and projects, attending class) that are targeted toward a particular aim (e.g., passing
examinations, getting job) (Ouwneel et al., 2013; Ouwneel et al., 2011).

Therefore, educational places are settings in which students work, so it is reasonable that the
concept of engagement can be extended to the study context (Ouwneel et al., 2013; Ouwneel
etal., 2011;Salmela-Aro & Upadaya, 2012). Thus, analogously to work engagement, study
engagement is characterised by students’ feelings of vigor, their dedication to their studies, and
34
their absorption in their academic-related tasks and activities(Schaufeli et al., 2002; Ouwneel et
al., 2013; Ouwneel et al., 2011). The following paragraph discusses in more detail the three
dimensions of engagement: vigor, dedication, and absorption.The first dimension, vigor, refers to
students’ sense of high levels of mental resilience and energy while studying,their willingness to
exert and invest effort into their academic-related activities, their persistence in the face of
obstacles, and their positive approach to learning (Ouweneel et al., 2014; Ouweneel et al., 2013;
Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, 2014; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013).

The second dimension, dedication, is characterised by students’ sense of enthusiasm,

inspiration, significance, challenge, and pride for engaging in their studies, as well as their
perception of school-related activities as meaningful (Ouweneel et al., 2013; Ouweneel et al.,
2014; Salmela-Aro & Upadyaya, 2014; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Finally, absorption is
defined as students’sense of being deeply engrossed and fully concentrated in their studies (e.g.,
time passes quickly when studying)(Ouweneel et al., 2013; Ouweneel et al., 2014; Salmela-Aro
& Upadyaya, 2014; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro,2013). The three aforementioned dimensions of
engagement are separate constructs, but also correlate highly with each other (Schaufeli et al.,
2002; Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). 35

2.10 Comparison between Models of Engagement by Fredricks et al. (2004) and Schaufeli
et al. (2002)
Both engagement models (i.e., Fredricks et al., 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002) measure
different features of students’ underlying academic engagement, and emphasise the association
between academic engagement and successful achievements (Phan, 2014a, 2014b; Upadyaya &
Salmela-Aro, 2013). Our critical examination of the literature concerning these two models
indicates that the two conceptualisations have some major similarities and differences. The
following paragraphs highlight the main similarities and differences of these two models.Despite
the variations between the two conceptualisations, researchers have observed some similarities
(Bakker et al., 2015; Phan, 2014c; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). For example, the two
models include aspects such as students’ resilience, willingness to exert effort, persistence,
challenge preference, and positive approach toward learning in their definitions of the
multidimensional components of engagement.

35
 In addition, within Fredricks etal.’s (2004) framework, students’ cognitive engagement
involves items such as their investment in school-related activities and willingness to learn,
which is similar to the enthusiasm and inspiration described by Schaufeli et al.(2002) in the
dedication dimension (Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro, 2014; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro,
2013).Furthermore, Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) description of vigor includes a positive approach to
school-related activities, which is similar to the emotional dimension aspects such as positive
feelings about school and enjoyment in the Fredricks et al. (2004) model (Tuominen-Soini &
Salmela-Aro, 2014; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Likewise, Schaufeli et al.’s (2002)
absorption shares some features with the behavioural dimension and involvement in learning in
the Fredricks et al. (2004) model, as it describes a student’s behavioural performance and total
concentration on study-related activities (Tuominen-Soini & Salmela-Aro,2014; Upadyaya &
Salmela-Aro, 2013).

Even though the two conceptualisations of engagement have several similarities, The main
difference between the two conceptualisations is that dedication, absorption, and vigor in
Schaufeli etal. (2002) describe students’ psychological engagement rather than their behaviour in
the school environment (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013; Schaufeli et al., 2002). As a result,
Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) model lacks information pertaining, for example, to school attendance,
adherence to classroom norms, following the rules,and respect for teaching staff (Upadyaya &
Salmela-Aro, 2013). In addition, the emotional dimension of Schaufeli et al.’s (2002) model
regards students’ feelings toward their studies only, and does not concern their feelings about
classmates, teachers, and the school (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Despite these omissions,
however, the description of students’ psychological engagement in great detail increases the
significance of the Schaufeli et al. (2002) model; providing new information and a fresh basis for
researchers to gauge the 36motivational approach of engagement (Phan & Ngu, 2014a; Phan,
2014b; Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). 36

36
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes the procedures that will be followed in carrying out this study. It is
organized under the following sub headings: Research Design, Population of the Study, Sample
and Sampling Techniques, Instrument for Data collection, and Method of Data Collection, and
Method of Data Analysis.

3.1 Research Design

The descriptive research of a survey kind was used for the study. Descriptive research is a
useful tool to employ when investigation is made into the opinion of representative population.
Descriptive research is a useful scientific tool to employ when investigation is made into the
opinion of representative sample of the target population so as to have the rough perception of
the entire population (Dada, 2015).

3.2 Population of the Study

The target population for the study comprises all students involved in enterprenerial
practices in tertiary institutions in Ondo Town.

3.3 Sample and Sampling Technique

Sample of this students involved in entrepreneurial practices. A purposive snow ball and
accidental Sampling techniques is used, A sample of one hundred institutions in Ondo town was
randomly selected for the study based on their gender, School type, environment and
intelligence.

3.4 Instrument for Data collection

The instrument used for data collection is a self reporting scale which was adopted from
Shoyemi (2021). The instrument was split into two sections. Section A seek for personal
information of the respondents while section B contain items structured in Never (N), Sometimes
(S) , Often (O) and Very Often (VO) that elicit responses from the respondents to answer the
research questions.

37
3.5 Validity of the instrument
The instrument was subjected to face and content validity by the supervisor. The research
instrument was confirmed to measures what it is supposed to measure and performs as it is
designed.

3.6 Method of Data Collection

The research instrument was distributed by the researcher to one hundred (100) students
involved in entrepreneurial practices in selected tertiary institutions in Ondo Town and was
completed by ticking the appropriate option box in the instrument and was returned to the
researcher after completion.

3.7 Method of Data Analysis

Data collected was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistical tools. Mean was
calculated and used to answer the research questions while t-test was used to test the null
hypothesis at 0.05 level of significance.

38
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

This section contains the analysis of data collected through the research instruments
designed to examine the academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices
in tertiary institutions. Four research questions were raised in the study. Research question one
that has no corresponding hypothesis was answered using mean. The three hypotheses
formulated in the study were tested at 0.05 level of significance using independent Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA) and t-test. Hypothesis 1 was tested using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA),
while hypotheses 2 and 3 were tested using t-test.
Table 4.1: Demographic Data of the Respondents
Variables Frequency Percentages (%)
Academic Level
100 L 16 16.0
200 L 15 15.0
300 L 21 21.0
400 L 42 42.0
500 L 6 6.0
Total 100 100.0
School Type
Private 42 42.0
Public 58 58.0
Total 100 100.0
Gender

Male 16 16.0

Female 84 84.0

Total 100 100.0

Table 4.1 shows the demographic data of the respondents. Result in Table 1 showed that
100 university students participated in the study out of which 16% were sampled from 100
39
Level, 15% were sampled from 200 Level, 21% were sampled from 300 Level, 42% were
sampled from 400 Level, and 6% were sampled from 500 Level. Also, 42% were sampled from
private tertiary institutions and 58% were sampled from public tertiary institutions. With respect
to gender, 16% of the sampled students were males and 84% were females.

4.1 Answering Research Questions

Research Question 1: What is the level of academic engagement of students involved in

entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State?

To answer the research question, responses on academic engagement of students involved

in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State were summed and subjected to mean analysis.
Decision as to the level of academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial
practices in Ondo State was based on the benchmark of 2.50. To achieve this, average of the
numerical points for the response options were obtained as (4+3+2+1)/4. In which 4 stands for
Very Often, 3 stands for Often, 2 stands for Sometimes, and 1 for Never. Grand mean score of
2.50 and above means that the level of academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State was high, while grand mean score below 2.50 means that
the level of academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State
was low. The result is presented in Table 4.2.

40
Table 4.2: Level of academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices
in Ondo State
S/N ITEMS Mean
1 Attendance in class 3.37
2 Asking of questions related to topic of discussion during class 2.25
3 Note taking in class 3.15
4 Contribution to discussion during class 2.47
5 Presentations during class/Presentation 2.52
6 Involved/participate in online class/presentation 2.42
7 Work on assignment/essay for submission 3.04
8 Studying topics in course outline ahead of the class 2.42
9 Consultation with lecturers for academic related materials 2.32
10 Use of the university library resources/facility 2.21
11 Purchase of textbooks and other academic related materials 2.70
12 Use of internet, e-learning/online library to sources for study materials 2.88
13 Adequate preparation for lecture before time through private study 2.62
14 Engagement in small group discussions and tutorial 2.68
15 Working with other students outside class to complete a task or 2.68
assignment
16 Working with other students on project or other academic task during 2.49
class
17 Engaging level adviser on your academic related issues 2.12
18 Using significant time to study and research on what have been taught in 2.62
previous lecture
19 Participation in activities like debate, exhibition, seminars, quiz, 2.29
discussion and workshops
20 Getting to class for lectures on time 3.04
Grand Mean 2.62

Key: 0.0 – 2.49 = Low Level of Engagement;

2.50 – 4.00 = High Level of Engagement

Results in Table 4.2 show the level of academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State. As shown in the table, the observed grand mean was
within the benchmark of high level. This means that the level of academic engagement of
students involved in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State was high.

41
4.2 Hypothesis Testing

H01: There is no significant difference in academic engagement of students involved in

entrepreneurial practices based on academic level

Table 4.3: ANOVA on difference in academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial

practices based on academic level
Sources Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 967.835 4 241.959 2.39 0.06
Within Groups 9580.755 95 100.850
Total 10548.590 99

Results in Table 4.3 show F-value of 2.39 and p-value of 0.06 in which the p-value is
greater than 0.05 (0.06 > 0.05). Since 0.61 is greater than 0.05 alpha level of significance, the
null hypothesis is not rejected. This implies that there is no significant difference in academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on academic level.

H02: There is no significant difference in academic engagement of students involved in

entrepreneurial practices based on school type.

Table 4.4: Independent t-Test on difference in academic engagement of students involved

in entrepreneurial practices based on school type
School Type No Mean Std. t-value Df p-value Remark
Private 42 54.74 10.99
2.05 98 0.04 Significant
Public 58 50.52 9.52

Results in Table 4.4 shows a t-value of 2.05 and p-value of 0.04 in which the p-value is
less than 0.05 (0.04 < 0.05). Since 0.04 is less than 0.05 alpha level of significance, the null
hypothesis is not accepted. This implies that there is significant difference in academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on school type in favor of
students from public schools.
42
H03: There is no significant difference in academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices based on gender.

Table 4.5: Independent t-Test on difference in academic engagement of students involved

in entrepreneurial practices based on gender
Gender No Mean Std. t-value Df p-value Remark
Male 16 49.06 10.06
1.37 98 0.17 Not
Significant
Female 84 52.90 10.32

Results in Table 4.5 shows a t-value of 1.37 and p-value of 0.17 in which the p-value is
greater than 0.05 (0.17 > 0.05). Since 0.17 is greater than 0.05 alpha level of significance, the
null hypothesis is not rejected. This implies that there is no significant difference in academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on gender.

4.3 Discussion of Findings

This study examined the academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial

practices in tertiary institutions. The result of the study showed that the level of academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State was high. This means
that majority of the sampled tertiary institution students involved in entrepreneurial practices
highly engaged academic activities. This result is possible where the students attends class
regularly, take notes regularly, frequently ask questions relating to topic of discussion,
engagement in small group discussions and tutorial, and work with other students outside class to
complete a task or assignment, in addition to other activities capable of enhancing level of
academic engagement.

The result of the study also revealed that there is no significant difference in academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on academic level. This
means that academic level does not influence the academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices. This result is plausible where students in the various academic levels
43
exhibited relatively the same level of academic engagement. Academic level or progress does not
influence the rate at which students involved in entrepreneurial practices engages in their
academic activities.

Also, the result of the study showed that there is significant difference in academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on school type in favor of
students from public schools. This means that the academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices is dependent of the type of school attended, and that students that
attends public schools are more engaged in academic activities than their counterparts in private
schools even when they involve in entrepreneurial practices.

On the final note, the result of the study revealed that there is no significant difference in
academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on gender. This
means that gender does not influence the academic engagement of students involved in
entrepreneurial practices. This result is plausible where students, irrespective of gender, exhibit
relatively the same level of academic engagement. This suggests that gender does not influence
the rate at which students involved in entrepreneurial practices engages in their academic
activities.

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMNDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, conclusion and recommendations of the study.

5.1 Summary
This study examined the academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial
practices in tertiary institutions. The study found out the level of academic engagement of
students involved in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State; difference in academic engagement
of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on academic level; difference in academic
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on school type; and
difference in academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices based on
gender. Relevant literature was done on the topic in line with the specific objectives of the study.
Questionnaires were structured and administered to obtain relevant data from extra year students
in tertiary institutions in Ondo Town. The study revealed that:
1. The level of academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo
State was high.

2. There is no significant difference in academic engagement of students involved in

entrepreneurial practices based on academic level.

3. There is significant difference in academic engagement of students involved in

entrepreneurial practices based on school type in favor of students from public schools.

4. There is no significant difference in academic engagement of students involved in

entrepreneurial practices based on gender

5.2 Conclusion
Based on the result of the data analysed and the discussion of the study, it was concluded
that majority of the sampled students involved in entrepreneurial practices in Ondo State highly
engaged in academic activities. It was also concluded that academic level and gender does not
influence academic engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practice; but academic

45
engagement of students involved in entrepreneurial practices is dependent of school type in favor
of students from public schools.

5.3 Recommendations
Based on the summary of the study and the conclusion thereof, the following
recommendations are made.
1. The tertiary institution students should be sensitized on the need to sustain their level of
academic engagement which was found to be high.
2. Academic staff should use more student-centred teaching strategies. These strategies should
provide opportunities to extra year students to maximize their academic engagement in the
teaching and learning process.
3. The management of private tertiary institutions should intensify efforts towards to sensitize
students on the need to be highly engage in academic activities in addition with their
entrepreneurial activities.

46
 REFERENCES

Abdulnasir, A. (2018) "Entrepreurship lecture note"

Andre, C. ,Bruno, F. Paola, R. & Sergio, Q.(2018) "Determinants of Students

Entrepreurship'.Innovation and management review vol.16 No 2.2019 PP 96-117

Anurag, P (2015)."Introduction to Entrepreneuship" Entrepreneuship, learning and

Implementation.

Bercovitz, J & Feldman, M.(2008). "Academic entrepreneurers" Organizational change at the

individual level, organization science,19(1),69 -87.

Donckels, R.(1991). "Education and entrepreneuship experience from secondary and University

education in Belgium", Journal of small Business and Entreprise.Vol.9 No 1,pp 35 - 42

Druckel, P.(1992) "Innovation and entrepreneuship". Practice and principles.

Fitzsimmons & Douglas (2005).Entrepreneurial interest and academic performance in Nigeria:

evidence from undergraduate studies in University of Ibadan.Journal of innovation and

Entrepreneuship.

Hayter, C(2016) " Constraining entrepreneurial development; a knowledge based view of social

networks among academic entrepreneurers", Research policy,vol.45.No 2 pp 475 -490

Heiko, B. , Christian,H. , Rolf, S. ,"What makes student entrepreneurs on the relevance (and

irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for Students start-ups.

Julien, M.,Antoine, H. & Saresh, S."Student Entrepreneuship" : A research agenda

Malgorzata, R."Students Entrepreneuship" research on development.

Mc stay, D. (2008).An investigation of undergraduates student self employment intention and the

impact of Entrepreneuship Education and previous entrepreneurial experience.

47
Oqab, A ,Huy, P & Bing, H.(2016) "Academic Engagement" ; An overview of it's definitions,

dimensions and major conceptualizationd.

Uche. A ,Akanni, O. & Deborah, A (2017). Entrepreneurial interest and academic performance

in Nigeria Journal if Innovation and Entrepreneuship

48
 APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY EDUCATION
FACULTY OF ART AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
ADEYEMI COLLEGE OF EDUCATION, ONDO STATE, NIGERIA
ASSESSMENT OF THE ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT OF STUDENTS INVOLVED IN
ENTREPRENEURIAL PRACTICES IN SELECTED TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS IN
ONDO STATE
Dear respondent,
This is a research embarked upon with the purpose of assessing the academic
engagement of undergraduate in Ondo Town, Nigeria. You are kindly requested to rate yourself
in the scale of 1 to 6 as regards your engagement in the academic. Your responses to these items
will be treated absolute confidentiality as your name, contact, institutions is not required. Thanks
for your cooperation.
Yours Researcher,
ADEMOLA GOODLUCK
Instruction: Please fill by ticking ( √) appropriate into the category you can best place yourself.
Section A (Demographic characteristics)
1. Level: 100 ( ) 200 ( ) 300 ( ) 400( ) 500( )
2. School type: Private ( ) Public ( )
3. Gender: Male ( ) Female ( )

Response keys:Never =N ,Sometimes = S ,Often = O, Very Often = VO

Please rate yourself in the scale below on the level of your involvement in the following
social activities

S/N Behaviourcharacteristicstowardsacademic N S O VO

1 Attendance in class

2 Asking of questions related to topic of

discussion during class

3 Note taking in class

4 Contribution to discussion during class

5 Presentations during class/Presentation

6 Involved/participate in online
class/presentation

49
7 Work on assignment/essay for submission

8 Studying topics in course outline ahead of the

class

9 Consultation with lecturers for academic

related materials

10 Use of the university library resources/facility

11 Purchase of textbooks and other academic

related materials

12 Use of internet, e-learning/online library to

sources for study materials

13 Adequate preparation for lecture before time

through private study

14 Engagement in small group discussions and

tutorial

15 Working with other students outside class to

complete a task or assignment

16 Working with other students on project or

other academic task during class

17 Engaging level adviser on your academic

related issues

18 Using significant time to study and research

on what have been taught in previous lecture

19 Participation in activities like debate,

exhibition, seminars, quiz, discussion and
workshops

20 Getting to class for lectures on time

50