Assessment of Entrepreneurial Potential in the Training of a New Generation of Change Agents in Spain

Citation: Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, Antonio Ramón, Ana María Domínguez-Quintero, and Antonio Bernal-Guerrero. 2023. Assessment of Entrepreneurial Potential in the Training of a New Generation of Change Agents in Spain. Social Sciences 12: 680. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/socsci12120680 Academic Editors: Ana Castro Zubizarreta and Roberto Sanz Ponce Received: 2 November 2023 Revised: 5 December 2023 Accepted: 7 December 2023 Published: 10 December 2023 Copyright: © 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). $ € £¥ social sciences Article Assessment of Entrepreneurial Potential in the Training of a New Generation of Change Agents in Spain Antonio Ramón Cárdenas-Gutiérrez 1,* , Ana María Domínguez-Quintero 2and Antonio Bernal-Guerrero 1 1Department of Theory and History of Education and Social Pedagogy, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain; [email protected] 2Department of Applied Economics I, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: acar[email protected] Abstract: The development of entrepreneurial potential in the training of school-age pupils is relevant for carrying out projects of an innovative and transformative nature. Entrepreneurial training is enacted through Spanish educational regulations, in relation to the development of the key entrepreneurial competence. Thus, a training programme in entrepreneurial potential for school-age students, who are considered as agents of change, was evaluated under the approach of “enterprise education pedagogy”. For this purpose, an experimental research study, pre-test and post-test, with a control and experimental group, was designed. The sample consisted of 1036 participants from eight autonomous communities in Spain. The data analysis was carried out by means of a t-test to compare the mean before and after the application of the programme on the total number of participants, as well as on the subgroups with and without entrepreneurial intentions. The results show that the PEIEO programme had a positive effect on entrepreneurial potential. The experimental group, compared to the control group, significantly increased their total score in the t-test, as well as for each dimension of entrepreneurial potential. Similarly, the participants considered to have entrepreneurial intentions further increased their entrepreneurial potential compared to the group considered to have no entrepreneurial intentions. Consequently, the results indicate that entrepreneurship education, in a holistic sense, has a relevant impact on entrepreneurial potential in a programme aimed at training agents of change. Keywords: entrepreneurial education; entrepreneurship education; agents of change; effectiveness of entrepreneurship education 1. Introduction The economic, social, environmental and geopolitical challenges that constrain full human development need to be met more rapidly in order to achieve the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (2015–2030). Among other factors, access to quality education is key to understanding the world and acting to improve it. From a capacities standpoint (Nussbaum 2011;Sen 2002), education is understood as a strong capacity, i.e., an opportunity with the capacity to promote new opportunities (Bernal-Guerrero 2017). Thus, education could be seen as the capacity with the greatest potential for transferability. In this sense, various human development reports ratify how education is an essential reference point for transforming the global challenges that we face (UNDP 2020,2022). Considering the access to, and quality of, education implies paying attention to the opportunities that education offers each individual for their own personal development (Bernal-Guerrero 2022). When seen thusly, education is oriented towards the development of personal potential in order to achieve the full evolvement of each human being. The organisation of education around the person implies the individuation of educational systems, with individuals prevailing over school homogenisation processes, so characteristic of the metaphor of school as a production line of students (Robinson and Aronica 2015). Educational individuation, which Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12120680 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 2 of 18 implies a change in identity and not simply an accumulation of specific knowledge and skills, is a means that enables people to be agents and actors in their own lives. Education as agency formation involves the development of intentional actions in everyday activities, demonstrating the impact of people’s behaviour on their environment. According to their notion of personal initiative, Lisbona and Frese (2012) argue that certain people in the world can make things happen. For example, Malala Yousafzai, Nobel Peace Prize winner at the age of 17, for her activism in favour of the right of all children to an education, or Greta Thunberg, an environmental activist, who at the age of 15 started a school strike for the climate, managing to mobilise thousands of students in more than 270 countries. These examples are illustrative cases of children who are considered to be agents of change, that is, with the entrepreneurial capacity to transform the reality around them. In this respect, various international organisations, the UN, the OECD and the EU, propose a set of skills necessary for citizens to face the challenges of the 21st century. Among these, entrepreneurial capacity is a key factor in promoting proactive and innovative behaviour in the face of global change, and the uncertainty this entails. For some time now, a productive line of research has been consolidated around the educability of entrepreneurial skills, called “entrepreneurship education” (Hägg and Kurczewska 2022;Jones and Iredale 2014;Tiberius and Weyland 2022). This concept transcends the productive elements and links entrepreneurship education to behaviour regarding the generation, development and management of personal and social projects, based on the construction of responsibility and personal judgement. This more holistic and integrative concept of entrepreneurship education revolves around how entrepreneurial behaviour is shaped in children, for its subsequent transfer to diverse contexts where they can develop. The more profound nature of entrepreneurship education, anchored to the processes of constructing identity, requires special attention on our part. The greater neuronal plasticity of children lends increased relevance to training in this competence. Thus, the European Union’s educational guidelines propose that entrepreneurship education should be taught from the earliest years of schooling. From childhood, basic training in entrepreneurship education may facilitate children to learn the autonomy and initiative needed to carry out personal projects with a capacity for innovation and transformation, in other words those elements that are typical of agents of change. Numerous explanations have been put forward as to why certain people are capable of acting to transform their reality, while others are not. 1.1. Entrepreneurial Potential The European Union recommends to its member states, in various guidelines, training in key entrepreneurial skills, recognised as an essential achievement for students to progress successfully along their educational journey, and to face local and global challenges (Bacigalupo et al. 2016;European Commission 2013; Recommendation 2006/962/EC). In the case of Spain, the LOMLOE (Organic Education Law 3/2020, which amends Organic Law 2/2006), includes entrepreneurial competence as a comprehensive approach for activating ideas, through the planning and management of sustainable projects of social, cultural and economic–financial value (BOE 2020). In terms of training in entrepreneurial competence, entrepreneurial potential plays a major role, without which it would be difficult to realise the full development of entrepreneurial competence. Moreover, entrepreneurial competence, in turn, also feeds back into entrepreneurial potential. Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen 2011), entrepreneurial potential is understood as a set of learned predispositions to respond in a systematic way, whether favourably or unfavourably, towards an object (Ajzen 1987;Ajzen and Fishbein 1975). Previous research in the area of productive entrepreneurship explains that an entrepreneurial attitude is a reliable and valid predictor of behaviour. Soomro et al. (2021); Deveci and Konu¸s (2022); Leffler (2020); and Krueger and Carsrud (1993), proposed an explanatory model of how intentions towards a behaviour derive from attitudes towards that behaviour, which are generated by personal and socio-cultural factors. The interactions that occur between social norms, attitudes Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 3 of 18 and perceived behavioural control, oriented towards entrepreneurial behaviour, generate a potential for influencing entrepreneurial initiative (Krueger and Brazeal 1994). Transcending the limits of productive entrepreneurship, we conceive entrepreneurial potential as a more integral concept, as a latent construct constituted by capacities and attitudes that materialise in the possibility of acting to execute innovative projects with high added value. Entrepreneurial potential consists of an architecture of enabling dimensions of entrepreneurial intention and behaviour. Several studies have provided us with a certain dimensional structure on the attitudes that constitute entrepreneurial potential (Athayde 2009;Bernal-Guerrero et al. 2021;Oliver and Galiana 2015;Robinson et al. 1991). Beyond the specificity of productive entrepreneurship, and considering the transfer of entrepreneurial attitudes to social, cultural or political contexts, the most common dimensions in these studies are: creativity, achievement motivation, personal control and leadership. This minimum common set of attitudes is the object of the education on entrepreneurial potential in children considered as agents of change. 1.2. Educating Entrepreneurial Potential The implementation of an entrepreneurial culture has been proposed for each educational stage. In the case of Spain, entrepreneurship was introduced as a basic skill in 2006. Since then, the Autonomous Communities have promoted, within the framework of their educational competences, various formulas to incorporate entrepreneurial skills at all levels of education. Initially, entrepreneurship was established in university and vocational training, developing skills for business creation and management. Subsequently, interest in entrepreneurship has extended to the earlier stages of the education system. In this respect, the education of entrepreneurial potential has materialised through “entrepreneurship education”. From this perspective, entrepreneurship education is essentially focused on the creation of companies and businesses (de Sousa et al. 2022). In general, entrepreneurship education in Spanish schools has been implemented through the design of business plans and the creation of educational mini companies. Among the most widely disseminated pedagogical experiences are Empresa Joven Europea and Emprender en mi Escuela, although an increasing number of proposals are emerging around “entrepreneurship education” at earlier stages of education. However, in this research study we distance ourselves from this educational practice oriented exclusively towards business creation and management, focusing on a more comprehensive or holistic view of the education on entrepreneurial potential. Thus, we reinterpret the meaning of entrepreneurship education based on “enterprise education pedagogy” (Jones and Iredale 2010,2014). This concept refers to the evolution of capabilities related to personal development and to an individual’s freedom to change, grow, act and adapt to contingencies and opportunities that may arise throughout their life. Enterprise education pedagogy is based on active and experiential learning, with the intention of cultivating individual abilities linked to the construction of personal identity. In this way, enterprise education pedagogy is conceived as a framework for educational action to cultivate an active, critical, informed and innovative populace, which is ready to face the challenges of the 21st century. In this sense, the education of entrepreneurial potential, from the perspective of enterprise education pedagogy, would be identified with the development of sustainable and transformative entrepreneurship, as a response to the global changes in today’s world (Mets et al. 2021;Seikkula-Leino et al. 2021). From this perspective, entrepreneurial education would participate in the formation of new generations of agents of change committed to creating a better world (Dodd et al. 2022). 1.3. Assessing Entrepreneurial Potential It is true that there is a trend towards the promotion of entrepreneurial education in the earlier stages of the education system, through the implementation of various educational programmes. In a comparative study on entrepreneurial education programmes in Spain, 47 of these programmes were identified at primary and secondary education levels Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 4 of 18 (Montero-Pedrera 2018). The concern to incorporate entrepreneurship into education is self-evident, although impetus is needed to evaluate its impact and the learning outcomes achieved, and to assess its implementation. The evaluation of entrepreneurship education in primary and secondary education is a problematic issue. In Spain, there are few studies on the effect of such programmes on the entrepreneurial education of students (Diego and Vega 2015); it seems that it is difficult to illuminate the black box of entrepreneurship education programmes referred to by Maritz (2017). Recent bibliometric research (Brüne and Lutz 2020;Lin et al. 2023) highlights the need for further efforts to define the effect of entrepreneurship education programmes on children, as this is a key developmental stage for training future agents of change. However, it also points to the multidimensional nature of entrepreneurship education in schools and the complexity involved in evaluating the effects of these programmes. The initial and ongoing training of teachers, the material and economic resources, and the school organisation itself are variables that can influence the effect of entrepreneurial education. Despite this, the evaluation of the effect of entrepreneurial education is essential to adjust the disparity between the goals set and the results obtained (Elert et al. 2015;Cardoso et al. 2018). In fact, one of the most recurrent criticisms is the disparity between the theoretical–normative discourse and the reality of educational practice. Therefore, the objective that we set ourselves, derived from this issue, is to assess the effect of the PEIEO educational programme on the entrepreneurial potential of minors in the middle stages of education, in a holistic and integral sense. 2. Methods In the following section, we contrast the two research hypotheses related to the impact of the PEIEO programme on entrepreneurial potential. In order to achieve this, we describe the context and research design, the participants and the research instrument. Subsequently, two data analyses are carried out: (1) using repeated measures t-tests to contrast the means by comparing the preand post-test in the experimental and control groups; and (2) dividing the experimental group into two sample subgroups, based on the consideration of entrepreneurial intentionality, and carrying out an intragroup and intergroup analysis by means of t-tests for the contrast of the means in the related samples. 2.1. Hypotheses The evaluation of entrepreneurial education is characterised by the fact that it is applicable at multiple levels. In this study, the ontogenetic level is examined, specifically the set of attitudes that shape the entrepreneurial potential of those students considered as possible agents of change. In relation to the formation of entrepreneurial attitudes of minors participating in the PEIEO entrepreneurship education programme, we put forward the following hypotheses: H1. Training in entrepreneurial attitudes will significantly increase the entrepreneurial potential of the participating students. H2. The formation of entrepreneurial attitudes will affect the entrepreneurial potential and each of its dimensions differently, depending on whether or not the students are considered to have entrepreneurial intentions. 2.2. Research Context and the PEIEO Programme The Recommendation of the Council of the European Union on key competences for lifelong learning (OJEU 2018) proposes fostering entrepreneurial competence, creativity and a sense of initiative among young people, by promoting opportunities for them to gain at least one period of practical entrepreneurship experience during their schooling. In the case of Spain, the adaptation of this recommendation has had the effect that, in the early and middle stages of the education system, entrepreneurial education programmes are Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 5 of 18 related to the creation of mini companies, focused mainly on entrepreneurial skills and knowledge. In Spain, responsibility for education is distributed among the Departments of Education for the 17 autonomous communities, with the exception of the cities of Ceuta and Melilla, which are assumed by the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. In this way, it can be seen that entrepreneurial attitudes require specific educational content for their development, as these topics are not sufficiently represented within the educational curriculum. This lack of content inhibits the development of entrepreneurial competence, which requires educational content that specifically addresses entrepreneurial attitudes. With this in mind, the PEIEO programme was created. Its general objectives are that students can: (1) generate ideas that facilitate the innovation process; (2) develop a proactive attitude in order to achieve their goals; (3) self-regulate their own behaviour; (4) be motivated positively to achieve preset objectives through their actions; and (5) be enabled to resolve uncertain situations. In order to achieve these objectives, the PEIEO programme was structured in fifty activities, ten for each of the five domains: creativity, leadership, personal control, achievement orientation, and problem-solving intuition. The teaching methodology was active and experiential, with the following methods implemented: cooperative learning, service learning, problem-based learning, and project-based learning. The PEIEO programme was implemented from January to June 2022. Those teachers responsible for its implementation also had responsibility for each participating class. They received training prior to the start of the programme and mentoring by the research team during implementation. The programme was carried out during school hours. 2.3. Research Design In this study we used an experimental and descriptive research design to evaluate the entrepreneurial potential of the participating students (Montero and León 2007). The analysis of the impact of the PEIEO was carried out using a pre-test (time 1—T1—before the application of the programme) and post-test (time 2—T2—after the intervention) design, with a control and experimental group (Cohen et al. 2007). An equal number of experimental and control groups were balanced within the participating schools (Nabi et al. 2017). 2.4. Participants The sample was obtained using stratified probability sampling (Rodríguez 1991). The stratification variables were: the Autonomous Community; the number of students enrolled in compulsory secondary education and in higher education (Vocational Training and Baccalaureate); the ownership of the school (private/public/subsidised); and the student’s gender. Considering these variables, the number of schools that took part in the study is described in Table 1. Table 1. Participating centres by Autonomous Community. Autonomous Communities No. Andalusia 15 Castilla-León 5 Valencian Community 5 La Rioja 5 Basque Country 5 Community of Madrid 4 Castilla-La Mancha 1 Navarre 1 Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 6 of 18 The study population is composed of 1,427,584 students, corresponding to the total number of students enrolled in the educational stages of the ESO, FP and Bachillerato in the 2019–2020 academic year (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, Government of Spain). The total sample participating in the study consists of 1036 participants, with an age range from 12 to 18 years. In the case of Spain, the Ministry of Education and Vocational Training considers that school age is up to 18 years, with the completion of the Bachillerato. The control group consisted of students who did not participate in the entrepreneurship subjects, comprising 440 participants, while the experimental group consisted of 596 participants, who completed the test at T1 and T2. The demographic factors taken as control variables defining the sample profile were: sex, age, educational stage, school ownership and Autonomous Community (Table 2). Table 2. Description of sample data. Demographic Factors Control Group Experimental Group Total No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) Gender Male 223 50.68 299 50.17 522 50.39 Female 217 49.32 297 49.83 514 49.61 Total 440 100.00 596 100.00 1036 100.00 Age 12–14 173 39.32 282 47.32 455 43.92 15–16 169 38.41 212 35.57 381 36.78 17–18 98 22.27 102 17.11 200 19.30 Total 440 100.00 596 100.00 1036 100.00 Educational Stage ESO 175 39.77 253 42.45 428 41.31 Bachillerato 6 1.36 25 4.19 31 2.99 VET int level 157 35.68 190 31.88 347 33.49 VET higher level 102 23.18 128 21.48 230 22.20 Total 440 100.00 596 100.00 1036 100.00 Ownership of the Educational Centre Public 344 78.18 427 71.64 771 74.42 Semi-private 91 20.68 112 18.79 203 19.59 Private 5 1.14 57 9.56 62 5.98 Total 440 100.00 596 100.00 1036 100.00 Autonomous Community Andalusia 187 42.50 311 52.18 498 48.07 Madrid 68 15.45 105 17.62 173 16.70 Castilla y León 37 8.41 50 8.39 87 8.40 Com. Valenciana 35 7.95 35 5.87 70 6.76 Castilla La Mancha 0 0.00 21 3.52 21 2.03 La Rioja 16 3.64 63 10.57 79 7.63 Basque Country 97 22.05 11 1.85 108 10.42 Total 440 100.00 596 100.00 1036 100.00 2.5. Research Instrument The ATE-S (Bernal-Guerrero et al. 2021) was used to assess the entrepreneurial potential of the participants (Table S1). This instrument is a version of the ATE test (Athayde 2009) adapted for the Spanish population and is psychometrically validated. The ATE-S is made up of 22 items on a seven-point Likert-type scale (from 1 = do not agree at all to 7 = strongly agree). The constructs assessed using the ATE-S in this study are the following: 1. Creativity: attitude to generating ideas that facilitate the innovative process. 2. Personal control: attitude to managing and self-regulating one’s own behaviour. 3. Achievement motivation: attitude towards perseverance, proactivity and goal achievement. 4. Leadership: attitude towards team building, decision making, negotiating and planning. 5. Problem-solving intuition: attitude to deal with uncertainty and instability. Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 7 of 18 The partial least squares (PLS) method was used to estimate the weights of each item in the formation of each of the dimensions, and the weight of each of these in the formation of the higher variable, namely entrepreneurial potential. PLS allows us to contrast the significance of these values in the formation of the dimensions or first-order variables, and in the formation of the higher variable. The choice of the PLS methodology (Roldán and Sánchez-Franco 2012) is mainly due to its suitability for modelling formative constructs. Table 3reports the significance of the weights of each of the items corresponding to each of the dimensions, and the significance of the weights of each dimension in the formation of the higher order construct, namely entrepreneurial potential. According to Hair et al. (2018), the items in a formative construct should not present multicollinearity problems. Following their recommendations, in Table 3we report the VIFs, which should all be less than 3.3 (Hair et al. 2009). In our case, this condition is met, indicating that there are no problems of multicollinearity between the items of each dimension, nor between the five formative dimensions of entrepreneurial potential. Finally, a standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) equal to 0.067, therefore lower than 0.08, indicates that the internal structure calculated for the entrepreneurial potential variable is adequate. Table 3. ATE model assessment. First Level (LOCs) Weights p-Value VIF Creativity I think that a good imagination helps me to function better in school. 0.042 n.s. 0.173 1.610 I like classes that make me develop my imagination. 0.321 *** 0.000 1.555 I think I show a lot of imagination in my school work. 0.446 *** 0.000 1.454 I enjoy classes where teachers do different activities. 0.190 *** 0.000 1.303 Personal control I believe that my future career success depends largely on what I do. 0.400 *** 0.008 1.362 I have confidence in my ability to succeed in my future career. 0.102 * 0.098 1.302 I think it is important to plan my future career. 0.025 n.s. 0.537 1.153 I am worried about not succeeding in my future professional life. −0.184 ** 0.028 1.553 I am as likely as anyone else to get a good job in the future. 0.654 *** 0.004 1.106 Achievement motivation I work very hard to achieve success in my projects. 0.129 *** 0.000 1.329 It is important to finish a project to the best of your ability. 0.247 *** 0.000 1.537 I am proud of my work this year. 0.442 *** 0.000 1.817 Working hard on projects is worth the effort. 0.075 *** 0.006 1.608 I feel great when a class project turns out well. 0.107 *** 0.003 1.851 Leadership I am good at motivating my classmates. 0.506 *** 0.000 1.693 I am good at persuading people to work in groups. 0.056 * 0.055 2.000 I think I can convince my classmates to agree on a plan. 0.254 *** 0.000 1.436 I take responsibility for organising my classmates when we work in groups. 0.164 *** 0.000 1.388 Problem-solving intuition I trust my own intuition to solve problems in class. 0.279 *** 0.000 1.192 Making mistakes is a good way to learn. −0.366 *** 0.000 1.361 I try to find different solutions to a problem before I give up. 0.939 *** 0.000 1.610 My intuition helps me to solve problems as they arise. 0.148 ** 0.012 1.616 Second Level (HOC) Creativity −→ ATE 0.183 *** 0.000 1.335 Personal control −→ ATE 0.350 *** 0.000 1.207 Achievement orientation −→ ATE 0.367 *** 0.000 1.451 Leadership −→ ATE 0.229 *** 0.000 1.283 Intuition −→ 0.122 *** 0.000 1.397 SRMR = 0.067 Note. *** p< 0.01; ** p< 0.05; * p< 0.1; n.s.: not significant. Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 8 of 18 2.6. Data Analysis Two analyses will be carried out, one on the sample as a whole (control and experimental group) and the other on the two established sample subgroups, based on the consideration of the entrepreneurial intentionality of the experimental group (Table 4). Table 4. Types of analysis. Analysis Sample Statistics First analysis Control group: 440 Experimental group: 596 Repeated measures t-test Second analysis Group without entrepreneurial intentions: 516 Group with entrepreneurial intentions: 80 Simple Aggregate Mean Index t-test for contrast of the means in related samples 2.6.1. First Analysis The first analysis is a repeated measures t-test to contrast the means comparing the preand post-test (T1 and T2). This aims to find out whether there are significant differences or not in the mean scores of the students who participated in the PEIEO programme (experimental group) compared to the control group who did not participate. To this end, the entrepreneurial potential, and each of its dimensions, were analysed: creativity,personal control,achievement orientation,leadership and problem-solving intuition. 2.6.2. Second Analysis The second analysis focuses on finding out how the formation of entrepreneurial attitudes affects entrepreneurial potential differently, depending on the possible entrepreneurial intentionality of the participants in the PEIEO programme. To this end, the experimental group was divided into two subgroups, following the criterion of the entrepreneurial intention rate in Spain, set at 10% of the Spanish population, according to the latest Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Spain report (Fernández et al. 2022). Applying this criterion to the experimental group, two subgroups were established: a subgroup with entrepreneurial intention, with an entrepreneurial potential value above the 90th percentile, and a subgroup without entrepreneurial intention, with an entrepreneurial potential value below the 90th percentile (Table 5). Table 5. Classification of the experimental group according to entrepreneurial intention. Gender Subgroup with No Entrepreneurial Intention (<P)90 Subgroup with Entrepreneurial Intention (>P)90 Total Male 255 44 299 Female 261 36 297 Total 516 80 596 Having established the two sample subgroups, based on the consideration of the entrepreneurial intentionality of the experimental group, we analysed whether there are significant differences in the increase in entrepreneurial potential, and the weight in relative terms of each dimension in regard to their formation, comparing the subgroups with entrepreneurial intention and without entrepreneurial intention, subsequent to the application of the PEIEO programme. From this position, we used a Simple Aggregate Mean Index formula to analyse the value of the entrepreneurial potential after the application of the PEIEO programme (T2), with respect to the same value before the programme (T1). Examining further the same line of results, we carried out an intra-group analysis where we calculated the percentages represented by each dimension in the formation of entrepreneurial intention, before and after the application of the PEIEO programme. Subsequently, an Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 9 of 18 inter-group analysis was carried out, comparing the percentages between the subgroups without entrepreneurial intention and those with entrepreneurial intention. These intragroup and inter-group analyses were carried out using t-tests for the contrast of the means in the related samples. 3. Results Below we present the results from the data analysed. Firstly, we address the hypothesis as to whether the training of entrepreneurial attitudes will significantly increase the entrepreneurial potential of the participating students. The descriptive results (Table 6) and the t-test show that the students who participated in the PEIEO programme have significantly developed their entrepreneurial potential and each of its dimensions. Table 7 describes the contrast between the mean scores of the control and experimental groups between T1 and T2. The first three columns show that there were no significant differences between the control and experimental groups at T1, i.e., all participants have the same initial level of both the overall measured entrepreneurial potential and all its dimensions. The last three columns show that at T2 the mean values are higher in entrepreneurial potential and its dimensions. The t-values results show that there are significant differences in entrepreneurial potential in all its dimensions between T1 and T2 in the control and experimental groups, thus confirming our first hypothesis. Table 6. Mean values of entrepreneurial potential and its dimensions. Indicators Pre-Test Mean Post-Test Mean Control (n= 440) Experimental (n= 596) Control (n= 440) Experimental (n= 596) Creativity 15.69 15.90 18.58 19.14 Personal control 18.79 18.97 19.23 19.79 Achievement orientation 20.42 20.67 21.79 22.17 Leadership 14.02 14.09 14.98 15.48 Problem-solving intuition 16.12 16.04 18.34 18.91 Entrepreneurial potential 85.03 85.67 92.93 95.49 Table 7. Analysis of differences in mean values. Indicators T1 T2 Diff. Mean Control and Experimental t-Values p-Values Diff. Mean Control and Experimental t-Values p-Values Creativity −0.216 −1.323 0.186 −0.552 −7.091 0.000 *** Personal control −0.182 −1.287 0.198 −0.569 −6.656 0.000 *** Achievement orientation −0.252 −1.336 0.182 −0.375 −2.606 0.000 *** Leadership −0.065 −0.349 0.727 −0.499 −2.976 0.000 *** Problem-solving intuition 0.078 0.519 0.604 −0.568 −5.644 0.003 *** Entrepreneurial potential −0.637 −1.054 0.292 −2.562 −5.444 0.000 *** Note. *** p< 0.001. Secondly, we contrast how the formation of entrepreneurial attitudes will affect entrepreneurial potential and each of its dimensions differently, depending on whether the student is considered to have entrepreneurial intentions or not. The result of the Simple Aggregate Mean Index indicates that the entrepreneurial potential as a whole has grown by 12.88% compared to its initial values. IMASATE t/0 = ∑iX2i ∑iX1i =1.1288 Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 16 of 18 Bernal-Guerrero, Antonio. 2017. Education as a fertile capacity. In Educación y capacidades hacia un nuevo enfoque del desarrollo humano. Edited by JoséAntonio Ibáñez-Marín and Juan Luis Fuentes Gómez-Calcerrada. Madrid: Dykinson, pp. 71–86. Bernal-Guerrero, Antonio. 2022. Entrepreneurial Identity. Towards an Educational Model. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch. Bernal-Guerrero, Antonio, and Antonio Ramón Cárdenas-Gutiérrez. 2017. Assessment of entrepreneurial potential in schoolchildren. A longitudinal investigation. Educación XX1 20: 73–94. Bernal-Guerrero, Antonio, Antonio Ramón Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, and Rosemary Athayde. 2021. Test de potencial emprendedor: Adaptación al español (ATE-S). Bordón Revista de Pedagogía73: 19–37. [CrossRef] BOE No. 340, of December 30. 2020. Ley Orgánica 3/2020, de 29 de diciembre, por la que se modifica la Ley Orgánica 2/2006, de 3 de mayo, de Educación. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2020-17264 (accessed on 9 April 2023). Brüne, Natalie, and Eva Lutz. 2020. The effect of entrepreneurship education in schools on entrepreneurial outcomes: A systematic review. Management Review Quarterly 70: 275–305. [CrossRef] Cárdenas-Gutiérrez, Antonio Ramón, and Elisabet Montoro-Fernández. 2017. Evaluation of an entrepreneurial education project in ESO. The students’ view. Revista de Investigación Educativa 35: 563–81. Cardoso, António, Àlvaro Cairrão, Dessilava Petrova, and Jorge Figueiredo. 2018. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Entrepreneurship Classes in the Bulgarian Secondary Education. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education 21: 1–21. Cohen, Louis, Lawrence Manion, and Keith Morrison. 2007. Research Methods in Education. Routledge: London. de Sousa, Marina Mendonça, Daniel Augusto Rocha de Almeida, Marcela Mansur-Alves, and Edson Massayuki Huziwara. 2022. Characteristics and Effects of Entrepreneurship Education Programs: A Systematic Review. Trends in Psychology, 1–31. [CrossRef] Deveci, ˙ Isa, and Fatma Zehra Konu¸s. 2022. The Predictive Power of Turkish Middle School Students’ Entrepreneurial Competencies on STEM Attitudes. The Journal of Entrepreneurship 31: 425–57. [CrossRef] Diego, Iván, and JoséAntonio Vega. 2015. Entrepreneurship Education in the Spanish Education System. Madrid: MECD. Dodd, Sarah, Serxia Lage-Arias, Karin Berglund, Sarah Jack, Ulla Hytti, and Karen Verduijn. 2022. Transforming enterprise education: Sustainable pedagogies of hope and social justice. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 34: 686–700. Draycott, Mattew, David Rae, and Katie Vause. 2011. The assessment of enterprise education in the secondary education sector: A new approach? Education + Training 53: 673–91. [CrossRef] Draycott, Mattew, and David Rae. 2011. Enterprise education in schools and the role of competency frameworks. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 17: 127–45. Elert, Niklas, Fredrik Andersson, and Karl Wennberg. 2015. The impact of entrepreneurship education in high school on long-term entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 111: 209–23. European Commission. 2013. Relaunching Entrepreneurship in Europe. Entrepreneurship Action Plan 2020. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2012) 795 Final. Brussels. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM: 2012:0795:FIN:es:PDF (accessed on 1 June 2023). Fellnhofer, Katharina. 2018. Narratives boost entrepreneurial attitudes: Making anentrepreneurial career attractive? European Journal of Education 53: 218–37. [CrossRef] Fernández, Ana, Isabel Neira, Nuria Calvo, Mahsa Samsami, Yago Atrio, and Esther Barros. 2022. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor. GEM Spain Report 2021–2022. Santander: University of Cantabria. Grewe, Ute, and Taiga Brahm. 2020. Development of entrepreneurial competences in mini-companies at schools. Education + Training 62: 917–31. [CrossRef] Hägg, Gustav, and Agnieszka Kurczewska. 2022. Entrepreneurship Education. Oxford: Routledge. Hair, Joseph F., Christian M. Ringle, Siegfried Gudergan, Julen Castillo Apraiz, Gabriel Cepeda Carrión, and JoséLuis Roldán. 2018. Manual Avanzado de Partial Least Squares Structural Equatin Modeling (PLS-SEM). Barcelona: OmniaScience Scholar. Hair, Joseph Franklin, William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Edinburgh Gate: Person New International Edition. Hardie, Bethay, Camilla Highfield, and Kerry Lee. 2020. Entrepreneurship education today for student’s unkonwn futures. Journal of Pedagogical Research 4: 401–17. [CrossRef] Jones, Brian, and Norma Iredale. 2010. Enterprise education as pedagogy. Education + Training 52: 7–19. [CrossRef] Jones, Brian, and Norma Iredale. 2014. Enterprise and entrepreneurship education: Towards a comparative analysis. Journal of Enterprising Communities 8: 34–50. [CrossRef] Krueger, Norris F. 2020. Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs: 25 years on. Journal of the International Council for Small Business 1: 52–55. [CrossRef] Krueger, Norris F., and Alan Carsrud. 1993. Entrepreneurial intentions: Applying the theory of Planned behaviour. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 5: 315–30. [CrossRef] Krueger, Norris F., and Deborah V. Brazeal. 1994. Entrepreneurial Potential and Potential Entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 18: 91–104. [CrossRef] Lackéus, Martin. 2020. Comparing the impact of three different experiential approaches to entrepreneurship in education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 26: 937–71. Lackéus, Martin. 2023. Pedagogía de la creación de valor: Un manual de aprendizaje significativo en la escuela. México: Círculo de Editorial Azteca. Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 17 of 18 Lackéus, Martin, and Carin Sävetun. 2019. Assesing the Impact of Enterprise Education in Three Leading Swedish Compulsory Schools. Journal of Small Business Management 57: 33–59. [CrossRef] Leffler, Eva. 2020. An Entrepreneurial Attitude: Implications for Teachers’ Leadership Skills? Leadership and Policy in Schools 19: 640–54. [CrossRef] Lin, Jingjing, Jiayin Qin, Thomas S. Lyons, and Tomoki Sekiguchi. 2023. Planning and evaluating youth entrepreneurship education programs in schools: A systematic literature review. Entrepreneurship Education 6: 25–44. [CrossRef] Lisbona, Ana, and Michael Frese. 2012. Personal Initiative. How to Make Things Happen. Madrid: Pirámide. Luis-Rico, Isabel, María-Camino Escolar-Llamazares, Tamara De la Torre-Cruz, Alfredo Jiménez, Álvaro Herrero, Carmen PalmeroCámara, and Alfredo Jiménez-Eguizábal. 2020. Entrepreneurial Interest and Entrepreneurial Competence Among Spanish Youth: An Analysis with Artificial Neural Networks. Sustainability 12: 1351. [CrossRef] Manickam, Mangair Karasi, and Mohd Zaidi Abd Rozan. 2023. Bibliometric analysis of entrepreneurial competencies using Scopus data and VOSviewer. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences 10: 98–207. [CrossRef] Maritz, Alex. 2017. Illuminating the black box of entrepreneurship education programmes: Part 2. Education + Training 59: 471–82. [CrossRef] Mets, Tõnis, Jack Holbrook, and Siim Läänelaid. 2021. Entrepreneurship Education Challenges for Green Transformation. Administrative Sciences 11: 15. [CrossRef] Mitrovic Veljkovic, Slavica, Mia Maric, Mladen Subotic, Branislav Dudic, and Michal Greguš. 2019. Family Entrepreneurship and Personal Career Preferences as the Factors of Differences in the Development of Entrepreneurial Potential of Students. Sustainability 11: 5693. [CrossRef] Montero, Ignacio, and Orfelio León. 2007. A guide for naming research studies in Psychology. Internation Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology 7: 847–62. Montero-Pedrera, Ana-Maria. 2018. Social action at the service of the common good: School-based entrepreneurial education programmes in Spain. In Educación e Inclusión: Aportes y perspectivas de la Educación Comparada para la Equidad. Edited by María Inmaculada González Pérez and Antonio Francisco Canales Serrano. La Laguna: Servicios de Publicaciones de la Universidad de la Laguna, pp. 453–60. Nabi, Ghulam, Francisco Liñán, Alain Fayolle, Norris Krueger, and Andreas Walmsley. 2017. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education in Higher Education: A Systematic Review and Research Agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education 16: 277–99. Nussbaum, Martha Craven. 2011. Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. OJEU C189/1, of Juny 4. 2018. Council Recommendation of 22 May 2018 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (Text with EEA Relevance). Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/ES/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018H0604(01) (accessed on 1 May 2023). Oliver, Amparo, and Laura Galiana. 2015. Development and validation of the Escala de Actitudes Emprendedoras para Estudiantes (EAEE). The Spanish Journal of Psychology 18: E14. [CrossRef] Pepin, Matthias, and Etienne St-Jean. 2018. Assessing the impacts of school entrepreneurial initiatives: A quasi-experiment at the elementary school level. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 26: 273–88. [CrossRef] Robinson, Ken, and Lou Aronica. 2015. Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That’s Transforming Education. London: Penguin Books. Robinson, Peter B., David V. Stimpson, Jonathan C. Huefner, and H. Keith Hunt. 1991. An Attitude Approach to the Prediction of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 15: 13–32. [CrossRef] Rodríguez, Jacinto. 1991. Métodos de muestreo. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas. Rodríguez, Sophia, and Hannah Lieber. 2020. Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurial Mindset, and Career Readiness in Secondary Students. Journal of Experiential Education 43: 277–98. [CrossRef] Roldán, JoséLuís, and Manuel J. Sánchez-Franco. 2012. Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for Using Partial Least Squares in Information Systems Research. In Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems. Edited by Manuel Mora, Lerine Annette Steenkamp, Ovsei Gelman and Mahesh S. Raisinghani. Pennsylvanian: IGI Global, pp. 54–96. Santos, Susana Correia, António Caetano, and Luís Curral. 2013. Psychosocial aspects of entrepreneurial potential. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 26: 661–85. Schelfhout, Wouter, Kristien Bruggeman, and Sven De Maeyer. 2016. Evaluation of entrepreneurial competence through scaled behavioural indicators: Validation of an instrument. Studies in Educational Evaluation 51: 29–41. [CrossRef] Seikkula-Leino, Jaana, Svanborg R. Jónsdóttir, Marcia Håkansson-Lindqvist, Mats Westerberg, and Sofia Eriksson-Bergström. 2021. Responding to Global Challenges through Education: Entrepreneurial, Sustainable, and Pro-Environmental Education in Nordic Teacher Education Curricula. Sustainability 13: 12808. [CrossRef] Sen, Amartya. 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Soomro, Bahadur Ali, Maqsood Memon, and Naimatullah Shah. 2021. Attitudes towards entrepreneurship among the students of Thailand: An entrepreneurial attitude orientation approach. Education + Training 63: 239–55. [CrossRef] Soc. Sci. 2023,12, 680 18 of 18 Spagnoli, Paola, Susana Santos, and António Caetano. 2017. Adaptation of the Attitude Toward Enterprise Test in the Italian high school and university contexts. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship 22: 1750005. [CrossRef] Steenekamp, AndréGerard, Stefan Van der Merwe, and Rosemary Athayde. 2011. An investigation into youth entre-preneurship in selected South African secondary schools: An exploratory study. Southern African Business Review 15: 46–75. Susantiningrum, Susantiningrum, Siswandari Siswandari, Soetarno Joyoatmojo, and Izza Mafruhah. 2023. Leveling Entrepreneurial Skills of Vocational Secondary School Students in Indonesia: Impact of Demographic Characteristics. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training 10: 113–37. [CrossRef] Tiberius, Victor, and Michael Weyland. 2022. Entrepreneurship education or entrepreneurship education? A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Further and Higher Education 47: 134–49. [CrossRef] United Nations Development Programme. 2020. Annual Report 2020. New York: UNDP. United Nations Development Programme. 2022. Annual Report 2022. New York: UNDP. Varamäki, Elina, Sanna Joensuu-Salo, Erno Tornikoski, and Anmari Viljamaa. 2015. The development of entrepreneurial potential among higher education students. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 22: 563–89. [CrossRef] Ward, Alexander, Brizeida R. Hernández-Sánchez, and JoséCarlos Sánchez-García. 2019. Entrepreneurial Potential and Gender Effects: The Role of Personality Traits in University Students’ Entrepreneurial Intentions. Frontiers 10: 2700. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.