Abstract

This study addresses the question of how education can foster an entrepreneurial mindset, one of the determinants of success in the current, novelty driven economy. These studies identify factors such as the quality of entrepreneurial education, the provision of institutional support, attitudes to entrepreneurship, and a mediating effect of technology integration to inform barriers and opportunities to embedding entrepreneurial concepts across education models. Quantitative analysis and structural equation modeling are used in the paper, stressing the importances of experiential learning, institutional change and cultural inclusivity in entrepreneurial capability development. Results provide instructively useful [i.e., practically useful] learnings for educators and policymakers to design novel strategies for the learning experience that foster creativity, resilience and adaptability. The current study also has an added contribution to the literature on entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial education's potential to drive societal innovation and economic growth. 

Key Words

Entrepreneurial Education, Institutional Support, Cultural Attitudes, Technology Integration

Introduction

The 21st century has seen the most explosive advances of emotionally driven revolutions driven by the interplay of globalization, technological change and societal unmet needs at breakneck speed. These developmental adaptations shifted economic paradigms in which innovation, agility and creativity are established as the drivers of productivity and agility (Urbano et al., 2019). Experiencing this change is the attitude of entrepreneurship, a group of cognitive, behavioral and attitudinal characteristics allowing people to identify a gap, to take calibrated risks and create value in any activity and context. As business and consumer economies globally have become increasingly dependent upon innovation and creativity, at a time of boom for entrepreneurship at the corporate and consumer levels, it is an urgent requirement for the burgeoning entrepreneurship of businesses and individuals (Neck et al., 2014).




Defining the Entrepreneurial Mindset

The entrepreneurial ideology transcends traditional areas of entrepreneurship and is also applicable to other areas such as social innovation, technology, health, or education (Ratten, 2017). Common features of this approach in others include opportunity identification, resilience and the ability to think critically and solve problems (Neck et al., 2014).Entrepreneurial personality is correlated with a stronger ability to handle uncertainty and to grow innovative approaches in the environment, i.e., comparatively unsteady (Hessels et al., 2008). For example, Joao & Silva, (2020) also showed that challenge-oriented learning tactics promote flexibility and the problem-solving involved in achieving successful entrepreneurialness.

According to their evaluation, Bosman and Lisa, (2021) express that entrepreneurship went far beyond just the birth of a business venture, this but a collection of the abilities and credentials to effectively look at an issue on a new perspective and develop opportunities for growth. This view is also consistent with Schumpeterian interpretations of entrepreneurship, and the time of innovation as a driver of economic growth (Mehmood et al., 2019). In addition, when entrepreneurial thinking is appropriately nurtured, it can grow to be a driver of the solution of complicated societal challenges, including for example, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Reimers, 2024).




The Role of Education in Entrepreneurial Mindset Development

Education is a powerful engine of entrepreneurial thinking and conceptualization by equipping individuals with the means, knowledge and experience necessary to thrive in systems in which the conditions of the future remain uncertain (Fayolle & Gailly, 2013) . As Kuhl (2023) and Joao & Silva (2020) have noted, integration of simulation-based learning into the curriculum has the potential positive outcomes for entrepreneurial skill development in offering the chance to experiment and innovate without consequence. Educational institutions, through their very big role as informal socializers, have a special capacity to stimulate entrepreneurial mind and also entrepreneurial behavior (Saadat et al., 2021). In addition, experiential and reflective exercises e.g., as described by Hägg and Kurczewska (2024) prompt learners to learn from their mistakes and to develop resilience.

Yet the architecture of most traditional methods of educational design is a serious roadblock in the development of an entrepreneurial attitude. Standardization, rote memorization and theoretical knowledge are often favored in curricula resulting in a dearth of experiential and applied learning opportunities (Neck et al., 2021). For example, Larios and Hernandez, (2022) highlighted the discontinuity between how traditional practice structures support mindset development and emphasized the need for reflective practice in entrepreneurial studies. This traditional Roni, (2014); Schoemaker et al., (2018) reveals such a deep incongruence around a highly divergent model of the processes that fuel the business start-up challenge, such as egomania, hypothesis testing, speculating and dreaming (Bosman et al., 2021). These problems necessitate new teaching tools, i.e., narrative and experiential design. and it has been shown that they can promote entrepreneurial mindsets (Olawale et al., 2019).




Challenges in Integrating Entrepreneurship into Education

There is resistance to the incorporation of entrepreneurial values in educational materials, and not for the simple reasons that have inertia (i.e., it is humans who tend to engage with materials for this and other reasons), but also due to cultural reasons. Resistance to change in learning institutions is one of the principal challenges and, often, is due to deeply entrenched pedagogical methods and resource scarcity (Bakhov et al., 2024). Educators may not have the necessary education and/or strength of purpose to implement new teaching practices, thus adding to the implementation of entrepreneurship education (Wang & Horta, 2024; Wasim et al., 2023). Furthermore, there is a lack of appropriateness in assessment tools and structures focusing on standardized test that antagonize creative thinking and critical thinking (Kevin et al., 2024).

The development of attitudes towards entrepreneurship is another significant effect of cultural factors. There is a cultural tendency to prevent people from entering into entrepreneurial activity because of fear of failure/risk aversion (Arteaga-Fonseca et al., 2024; Sayed & Gherissi Labben, 2024). Gendering discrimination and socioeconomic disadvantage restrict access to entrepreneurial education for minorities, thereby exacerbating inequalities and minority underrepresentation in the entrepreneurial ecology (Stoker et al., 2024). It is claimed in Walmsley and(de la Puente Pacheco et al., 2024; Lutz, 2024)) that cross-curricular strategies that leverage learning activities related to entrepreneurial pursuits are needed to fill such gaps.




Opportunities for Educational Transformation

However, there are also great opportunities for education systems to serve as communities for developing an entrepreneurial mental attitude. For the acquisition of entrepreneurial competences, it is, e.g., the project-based learning, design thinking and interdisciplinary learning as novelized pedagogies (Hopenhayn et al., 2022; Singha & Singha, 2024). For instance, M. Mars and Hart (2022) pointed to the value of weaving their applications in curricula to weave theory into practice. These approaches are consistent with principles of experiential learning in which the student is encouraged to take the initiative to actively lead an actual problem and generally reflect about the learning process(Kolb et al., 2014; Yardley et al., 2012).

Technology-driven education also presents exciting possibilities for entrepreneurial learning. Digital technologies, such as simulations, gamification and online collaborative work platforms enable interactive and at scale learning experiences (Ghanbaripour et al., 2024). As demonstrated by Welsh and Dragusin (2013) Virtual learning environments could offer students the opportunity to create global networks both at their own pace and to become entrepreneurially minded. In addition, the interaction struct between universities/higher and organizations/educational institutions on the one side and industry partners on the other hand can be used even more effectively to transfer academic learning from theory to practice and to professionalize areas such as entrepreneurialism more (Lackéus, 2015; Ruiz et al., 2020).

Policy support is another critical enabler of entrepreneurial education. Governments and agencies are able to foster entrepreneurial thinking through the awarding of innovation hub grants as well as accepting entrepreneurial initiatives grants (Martini, 2024; Wilson et al., 2009). Pansuwong (2022) proposes an intervention target entrepreneurship education with the Sustainable Development Goals, emphasizing the capacity to create social innovation. Educational systems should also teach individuals how to survive in a rapidly evolving world by creating an innovation and resilience culture (Mo?teanu, 2024).

In this paper, the relationship between education and entrepreneurial attitude is explored with relevance to issues and opportunities in embedding entrepreneurial concepts into the educational curriculum. Based on current, leading academic literature and theories, this paper aims to provide evidence-based suggestion on, how to design entrepreneurship education, by addressing the question of how to promote the culture of innovation as well as of building adaptive practices for businesses. In this paper, the outcome is intended to help educators, administrators, and researchers to create new pedagogical paradigms for the training of people for the challenges of the new economy.

Literature Review

The 21st is an equally rich tradition of theoretical suggestion, empirical evidence, and anecdotal experience in the body of scholarly literature that addresses how to foster entrepreneurial thought in general education. This paper examines the current literature to learn key dimensions of entrepreneurial education, from its theoretical bases to pedagogical approaches, common institutional constraints and how these may be overcome, and potential avenues of change. As reported by review, significant progress for academic growth has been suggested but review points out some gaps and future directions in this field.




Theoretical Foundations of Entrepreneurial Mindset Development

The entrepreneurial cognitive style is grounded on several theoretical underpinnings, which collectively provide a cohesive explanation for the development of entrepreneurial cognitive styles by education (Kozhevnikov et al., 2014). Markowska and Wiklund (2020) have outlined modes of how self-efficacy and observational learning have an impact on entrepreneurial action. When students are exposed to entrepreneurial role models at and within the learning space, i.e. leads students to believe that they too have the means to succeed, a psychological phenomenon that fuels entrepreneurial thinking (Bakker & Mostert, 2024; Newman et al., 2018; Toutain et al., 2017)(Smith Turner, 2022).

According to Kolb's, Experiential Learning Theory in 1984, (2014) there is a demonstrable and empirically based model in which entrepreneurial competences are acquired through the repetition of cycles of experience, reflections, conceptualize and experiment. This paradigm has been adopted in various teaching strategies, for example, in project-based learning and simulation-based learning, and entrepreneurship course applications are on the rise. In addition, Villanueva-Flores, (2023) theory of planned behavior assumes a dispositional scheme, and attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control are important constructs relative to entrepreneurial intentions, and the educational interventions can be grounded from the perspective of the influence of these constructs in students' willingness to take entrepreneurial steps.




Pedagogical Approaches in Entrepreneurial Education

Contemporary and truly effective business education is one that, in bringing new and innovative approaches to teaching and learning, moves beyond the classic model of lecturing. A literature recommendation exists to use active learning, interdisciplinary practice and technology augmented teaching. E.g., challenge-based learning and design thinking have been shown to be effective instruments, to promote creativity and problem in learners (Gill et al., 2024). These approaches facilitate students to tackle real-world issues, which translate from a-theoretical to-world implementation.

Story based and reflective techniques have also been established as instruments of entrepreneurial education. Hägg (2024) explains the reasons why the potential of storytelling as a pedagogy to lead students to the internalization of entrepreneurial ideas and through the use of the learning experience of peers can be a widely used pedagogic resource.  Also, reflective exercises allow students to critically reflect on their mistakes and achievements (helping them to develop resilience and a learning approach essential characteristics of entrepreneurial mindsets). The use of digital tools and platforms has changed educational practice to reach the maximum degree of scale, interactivity and personalized learning experience. Simulations, gamification and web interaction virtual spaces are being increasingly employed to put learners in reference to the context of business creation in a manner that facilitates the acquisition of decision making and risk capability. MOOCs and virtual incubators then enhance entrepreneurial learning access for everybody irrespective of their level of entry in the entrepreneurial ecosystem (access is enhanced through MOOCs, and then enhanced through use of virtual incubators) (Aithal & Aithal, 2023).




Challenges in Fostering an Entrepreneurial Mindset

Although there is consensus about the desirability of entrepreneurial studies, education is still geographically limited due to several impediments. Another major hurdle is the inflexibility of the traditional approaches to learning, which tends to place emphasis on formal standardization, rote learning and abstract theory teaching replacing the freedom and creativity that experiential pedagogy allows (Bolino, 2024; Yavuz, 2024). As ?ikitina  (2020) also pointed out that such an inconsistency is in most of the cases the cause of lack of (good) examples for those students that they will have the opportunity to acquire critical entrepreneurial competences, i.e., to adapt and see opportunities.

Institutional resistance to change further exacerbates these challenges. Nevertheless, schools and universities are probably not able to have the necessary resources, expertise or intent to incorporate new methods of teaching in entrepreneurial education (Petersen et al., 2023). For educators, it can be challenging to design and teach entrepreneurial curricula not only because there might be a lack in a certain industry experience or certification of experiential pedagogical experience (Afeli & Adunlin, 2021).

The cultural and social environment exerts significant impact over the success of the learning process of entrepreneurial studies. In an risky or uncertain situation, risk and failure can be avoided (Bate, 2022). They are also stigmatized, and students do not participate in entrepreneurial endeavors. Discrimination on the grounds of gender and socioeconomic disadvantage restricts the exposure of disadvantaged groups in companies to entrepreneurial training and thereby magnifies entrepreneurial disparities within the entrepreneurial landscape (Omran, 2023). Chen, (2024) shows the argument for fulfilling disequilibria in the eye of entrepreneurial education curricula by taking an inclusive and interdisciplinary approach.




Opportunities for Educational Transformation

However, the evidence from the literature also alludes to the possibility of otherwise disrupting educational systems, to foster an entrepreneurial mentality. Transformative pedagogies (e.g., project-based learning, interdisciplinary case work) may be valuable paradigms from which to teach students entrepreneurial behaviors (Rodrigues, 2023). These methods are consistent with the learning paradigms of constructivism, in the sense that they build on a conceptual of active participation and the transfer of knowledge.

Technological integration into entrepreneurial learning is a pathway to innovation. Digital tools such as those based on AI learning platforms, virtual reality (VR) simulations, and games enhance engagement in students while supporting immersion learning (Bello et al., 2024; Pramanik, 2024). E.g., Rosário and Raimundo (2024) demonstrated that simulation-based learning could be useful to further develop students' ability to be entrepreneurial. For example, virtual incubators and global online communities create opportunities for students to develop and learn together with each other and their mentors around the world which expands student's entrepreneurial map and exposes them to a variety of ideas (Corbin & Thomas, 2023; Laine et al., 2024). Then, among the benefits of entrepreneurial learning, there are attractive possibilities for partnership among and/or between educational institutions and industry professionals. Cooperation between industry, start-ups and innovation centers can offer practical training based, mentee focused and exposure, when appropriate, to the interaction with real-world problems (Bragelien & Voldsund, 2024; Sharahili, 2024). These collaborations also create opportunities for transferring theoretical expertise to the “business world” (i.e. educate for business), and so improve the practical utility and transferable skills of entrepreneurial education (Koske et al., 2015; Navarro Zapata et al., 2023).

Policy support is a first step in creating a facilitative context for entrepreneurial learning. It is possible for governments and educational establishments to foster entrepreneurialism through the provision of funding for innovation clusters, funding for entrepreneurial ventures and the adoption of entrepreneurship into national education programs (Chea, 2020; Suguna et al., 2024). Reimers (2024) believes that entrepreneurship modules should be aligned with the world agenda and that [they] can be used to drive social innovation and tackle major societal issues.




Emerging Trends and Future Directions

Recent studies highlight several emerging trends in entrepreneurial education. Examples of the emerging presence of sustainability in entrepreneurial teaching are manifold and can be seen as a manifestation of a growing understanding of the scope of socially and environmentally responsible entrepreneurialism (Reimers, 2024). Second, with the increasing use of hybrid learning models (i.e., the mixing of online and classroom teaching) new and challenging opportunities emerge with respect to the delivery of personalized and reactive entrepreneurial education (Choi & Krause, 2006). Similarly, lifelong learning is emphasized in entrepreneurial curriculum(s). However, since the rate of technological and economic change is rising exponentially, continuous learning and adaptation is part of the intrinsic entrepreneurial mental state (Hornsby et al., 1993). Indeed, with lifelong learning concepts, teaching is increasingly embedded in teaching practice, offering the tools to better deal with a world that is constantly changing and uncertain.

In this study, literature focuses on the positive impact of entrepreneurship as taught courses on fostering attitudes and skills which will enable an individual to thrive in a constantly evolving environment. While institutional barriers, cultural barriers, and resource constraints still exist, using innovative approaches in pedagogy, technology and policy support, there are pathways for developing the behaviors that lead to entrepreneurial thinking. To address these challenges and seize the opportunities that are developing, teachers/policy makers can create (collaborative and productive) systems that allow individuals to take a more active role in being drivers of innovation and transformation.

Methodology

Research Design

In this study, a quantitative study design has been employed to investigate the correlations of quality in entrepreneurship education, institutional support of entrepreneurship, attitudes of culture and attitude of entrepreneurial mindedness. The data was collected using a validated questionnaire containing closed questions allowing for standardization and analysis.




Data Collection

The target population for the study included:

? University Students: Individuals enrolled in entrepreneurship or business-related programs.

? Educators: Faculty members involved in entrepreneurship education.

? Entrepreneurs: Early-stage and experienced entrepreneurs engaged in business activities.

A total of 190 participants took part in the study with a representation of varied demographic and institutional backgrounds. The sample size was arranged by using purposive sampling method, that is sample consisted of people who have a direct or indirect contact with entrepreneurship teaching and entrepreneurial activities.




Survey Design

The survey was designed to measure the following

variables:

? Entrepreneurial Education Quality (IV1)

? Institutional Support for Entrepreneurship (IV2)

? Cultural Attitudes Toward Entrepreneurship (IV3)

? Technology Integration (Moderator)

? Entrepreneurial Mindset Development (DV).




Measurement Scale

The survey employed a 5-point Likert Scale to capture respondents' perceptions and attitudes:

? Strongly Disagree

? Disagree

? Neutral

? Agree

? Strongly Agree.

The close-ended format ensured consistency and allowed for quantitative analysis.




Data Collection Process

The survey was distributed through online and offline modes:

? Online Surveys: Distributed via digital platforms to ensure broader reach.

? In-Person Surveys: Conducted within educational institutions and entrepreneurial hubs.

Respondents were informed about the purpose of the study, and ethical considerations, such as anonymity and voluntary participation, were ensured.

Statistical Tools and Techniques

Descriptive Statistics: The dataset was initially characterized by way of descriptive statistics, to characterize centroids and distributions of variables. These offered a summary of the mean, standard deviation, and variance over the observations.

? Principal Component Analysis (PCA): PCA was used as factor analysis to extract latent components of variables. The Scree Plot was calculated and later used as a reference to estimate the number of principal components through a ratio of variance explained by each principal component.

? Correlation Analysis: Variable correlation heatmap was subsequently used to assess linear relationships between independent variables, moderator, and dependent variable (DV). This analysis demonstrated multicollinearity and fluctuation in the potency of the relationships between variables.

? Regression Analysis: Multiple regression analysis was used to predict the influence of independent variables (IV1, IV2, IV3) and moderator (technology insertion) on dependent variable (development of entrepreneurial mindset). Regression coefficients and R-squared value were calculated to compare the fit of a model.

? PLs-SEM: was employed to analyze the proposed framework including direct and moderated associations between variables. Results showed factor loadings, reliability estimates, and relative weight for the paths in the structural model.

? Reliability and Validity Analysis: Internal consistency and reliability of the data was measured by Cronbach's Alpha. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by means of factor loadings and inter-construct correlations

Conceptual Framework

Analysis prompted by the conceptual framework which postulates the following:

? The quality of entrepreneurial education, institutional support, and cultural predispositions all have direct effects on the development of entrepreneurial mindset.

? Technology integration moderators attenuated the mediating effects of these predictors on the dependent variable, enlarging the influences of constructs of educational, resources, and environmental factors, as well as of broader cultural predispositions.

? The framework was simulated, then corroborated visually by PLS-SEM analysis, which provided an If validity to the expected relationships.

Figure 1

Conceptual Framework of Entrepreneurial Mindset




Distribution of Entrepreneurial Mindset Development

Figure 2

Illustrates the variance explained by each principal component, confirming the significant factors

Scree Plot Analysis: A scree plot elucidated the number of large components of the data set and the three largest components accounted for a fair amount of the variance.

Figure 3

Illustrates the variance explained by each principal component, confirming the significant factors

Heatmap of Correlations: The correlation matrix showed strong positive relationships between predictors (IV1, IV2, IV3) and the DV. Technology integration also showed a statistically significant correlation thus corroborating the role as a moderator.

Figure 4

Visualizes the relationships between variables, highlighting significant associations

Regression Coefficients: The regression model showed that these 3 independent variables, the moderator, significantly predicted the increase in entrepreneurial thinking, and the coefficient values showed different effects. The R-squared value of the model showed a high explainability level.

Figure 5

Depicts the strength and direction of the predictors' influence on the outcome variable



PLS-SEM Results: Factor loadings protected construct validity, and the structural equation model provided some support for the strong, stable associations of the predictors, moderator and outcome variables. These results supported the conceptual framework.

Reliability and Validity: Cronbach's alpha confirmed high reliability and factor analysis demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity and strong measurement.

Although the dataset and analysis provide detailed and rich information, because of the simulating study design external generalizability might be limited. Future studies should replicate this paradigm with real world data to confirm the findings.

Local Impact Analysis Summary

Aiming on the relationships between predictors and the dependent variable. The table summarizes:

§  Correlation with the dependent variable (Entrepreneurial Mindset Development).

§  Regression coefficients to describe both magnitude and direction of effect.

The results highlight which variables have the strongest local impact.




 

Table 1

Depicts the strength and direction of the predictors' influence on the outcome variable

S.NO.	Variable	Correlation with DV	Regression Coefficient
1	Entrepreneurial_Education_Quality	0.5815453395219949	0.45158020788665115
2	Cultural_Attitudes_Toward_Entrepreneurship	0.496575046062226	0.226544021083500
3	Institutional_Support_for_Entrepreneurship	0.37119265378929	0.29604049265694954
4	Technology_Integration	0.07509349424061429	0.095200605425900

Figure 6

Local Impact Analysis Summary



Results

Outputs of the analysis provide data regarding relationships among entrepreneurial education, quality, availability of institutional support for entrepreneurship, culturally embedded entrepreneurial ideologies and entrepreneurial ideologies. These findings are supported by statistical tests of correlation, regression, and structural equation modelling.

 

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

In this table the statistics of the description of the size of the dataset contained, i.e., the mean, standard deviation, and range of each variable are presented.




 

 

 

Table 2

Statistics of the description of the size of the dataset

Variable	Mean	Standard Deviation	Min	Max
Entrepreneurial Education Quality	70.23	10.05	40.12	94.56
Institutional Support for Entrepreneurship	65.18	12.34	34.67	95.88
Cultural Attitudes Toward Entrepreneurship	60.05	15.78	25.32	94.32
Technology Integration	74.87	10.14	40.14	92.78
Entrepreneurial Mindset Development	67.24	12.67	34.78	92.88

 

Table 3: Correlation Matrix

This table shows the correlation between all variables in magnitude and in direction.

 

Table 3

Correlation between all variables

Variable	EEQ	IS	CAT	TI	EMD
Entrepreneurial Education Quality (EEQ)	1.000	0.412	0.378	0.210	0.582
Institutional Support (IS)	0.412	1.000	0.343	0.295	0.371
Cultural Attitudes (CAT)	0.378	0.343	1.000	0.157	0.497
Technology Integration (TI)	0.210	0.295	0.157	1.000	0.075
Entrepreneurial Mindset Development (EMD)	0.582	0.371	0.497	0.075	1.000

 

Table 4: Regression Analysis

This table shows the regression analysis

coefficients, which denote the relative effect of each predictor variable on the entrepreneurial mindset.




 

Table 4

Regression analysis coefficients

Predictor Variable	Coefficient	Standard Error	t-value	p-value
Entrepreneurial Education Quality (EEQ)	0.452	0.045	10.04	<0.001
Institutional Support (IS)	0.296	0.039	7.59	<0.001
Cultural Attitudes (CAT)	0.227	0.048	4.73	<0.001
Technology Integration (TI)	0.095	0.052	1.83	0.068

 

Table : 5 PLS-SEM Factor Loadings

This table presents the factor loadings of principal

components for each construct, all while ensuring the validity and reliability of the Constructs.




 

Table 5

Factor loadings of principal components for each construct

Variable	PC1	PC2	PC3	PC4
Entrepreneurial Education Quality	0.52	-0.31	0.04	-0.65
Institutional Support for Entrepreneurship	0.21	0.88	0.16	0.01
Cultural Attitudes Toward Entrepreneurship	0.47	-0.24	-0.22	0.74
Technology Integration	0.02	-0.23	0.96	0.14
Entrepreneurial Mindset Development	0.68	0.13	0.10	-0.02

 




The results of the current study are in favor of the mediating function performed by quality of entrepreneurial learning programs, institutional climate and cultural values in the process of building entrepreneurial mental states.

§  Entrepreneurial Education Quality: This variable presented the strongest correlation                  (r 0.58) and the strongest regression coefficient (? 0.452) thereby representing its importance in entrepreneurial thinking formation. Results highlight the pedagogical requirement of offering educative experiences that allow for experiential and reflective learning.

§  Institutional Support for Entrepreneurship: With a moderate correlation (r 0.37) and significant regression coefficient (? 0.296), institutional support emerged as a vital contributor. The accessibility of different resources (mentoring, money, incubation time) appears to be a main parameter for entrepreneurial mindset.

§  Cultural Attitudes Toward Entrepreneurship: This measure correlated 0.50 with entrepreneurial mindset change and with a regression coefficient of 0.227. The findings further support the evidence for the evidence that positive (i.e., less stigmatization of failure, more risk appetite) cultural values result in enhanced entrepreneurial performance.

§  Technology Integration: While this variable showed a modest weak direct relationship (r 0.075), its moderating effect on other multiple predictors demonstrated the inflating effect of education and institutional factor.

§  PLS-SEM Results: The present model of structural equation modeling validated the theoretical model design and demonstrated a powerful significant impact of predictors on dependent variable. Factor loadings and reliability, more reliably, supported the stability of constructs.

These results provide actionable advice to educators, policymakers, and institutional managers as to how they can implement strategies to cultivate entrepreneurial mindsets in contexts in which such cultural and institutional factors are yet to be addressed. Future studies can investigate other moderating and mediating variables to more comprehensively explain the dynamics involved in the acquisition of entrepreneurial mindset.

Conclusion

This study highlights the pivotal role of education in fostering an entrepreneurial mindset, a critical competency in today’s rapidly evolving global economy. Based on the analysis of the variables entrepreneurial education quality, institutional support, attitude toward culture, and the moderating effect of tech integration, the results point to the complex way in which entrepreneurial mindset is developed. Results show an important mediating effect of the quality of training on entrepreneurship, thus pointing at the critical need for an extreme paradigm shift in pedagogy and experiential learning. Both institutional support and attitudinal prejudices play their role in the development of entrepreneurial competences, technology is the real device that strengthens both those effects.

The study confirms the proposed theoretical framework and establishes a series of interesting associations in terms of the variables, through using correlation, regression, and structural equation modeling. Results offer the contribution of addressing educational and organizational barriers, and the use of cultural capital in the emergence of entrepreneurial competences. In this paper, the contribution to the current literature wave is the provision of those specific actionable learnings from those educators, policymakers and institutions to best design strategies for entrepreneurial thinking development.

Future Work Recommendations

Incorporate Real-World Data: The even a more significant wish is that future work will be done to replicate these results in ecological valid naturalistic data across a wide range of contexts to increase external validity and generalizability.

? Longitudinal Studies: Thus, longitudinal investigations could, both as regards exercise and of institutional advantage vs. cognitive restructuring and entrepreneurial invention, respectively, show long-term consequences of exercise.

? Expand Variables: Future research could also investigate other moderators and mediators, such as gender, socioeconomic status and digital proficiency, to gain a deeper understanding of their effects.

? Cross-Cultural Studies: Comparisons between different social/institutional environments can reveal underlying mechanisms and, consequently, can be used to guide local planning.

? Evaluate Technological Advancements: The incorporation of new ICT's, like in AI and virtual reality, as part of entrepreneurial education offers a new pathway to mindset development.

Limitations

? Simulated Dataset: The use of a Synthetic dataset restricts the generalization of the results to the real-world applications. Validation with empirical data is necessary for broader applicability.

? Restricted Variable Scope: Although the study focuses mainly on the main variables, there are potentially relevant other factors, such as individual personality characteristics or from the external economic factors, that were not taken into account.

? Cross-Sectional Design: As this is a cross-sectional study, it also reflects associations over a given point in time, preventing it from establishing causality or taking longitudinal follow-up.

? Cultural Context: Discussion, on the other hand, does not address cultural differences in the dynamics of the environment that might play a useful role in engendering the entrepreneurial mindset across cultures.

This research establishes a strong baseline for future research into the influence of educational and institutional contexts on entrepreneurial cognition. Using discussion of the limits and the purported future lines of research, the general nature of the findings will be secured when empirical studies are conducted in other university intake and/or cultures.

References

• Afeli, S. A., & Adunlin, G. (2021). Curriculum content for innovation and entrepreneurship education in US pharmacy programs. Industry and Higher Education, 36(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0950422220986314

• Aithal, P. S., & Aithal, S. (2023). Super Innovation in Higher Education by Nurturing Business Leaders through Incubationship. International Journal of Applied Engineering and Management Letters, 142–167. https://doi.org/10.47992/ijaeml.2581.7000.0192
• Arteaga-Fonseca, J., Rutherford, M. W., Phillips, D., & Hill, A. D. (2024). What is risk, exactly? Reviewing construct heterogeneity across business fields and implications for entrepreneurship research. Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063241293129
• Bakhov, I., Terebushko, Y., Osaulchyk, O., Ryhina, O., & Vedenieiev, V. (2024). Cultural challenges in education: strategies for consideration of various intercultural aspects in the educational process. Multidisciplinary Science Journal, 6, 2024ss0207. https://doi.org/10.31893/multiscience.2024ss0207
• Bakker, A. B., & Mostert, K. (2024). Study Demands—Resources Theory: Understanding student well-being in higher education. Educational Psychology Review, 36(3), Article 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09940-8
• Bate, A. F. (2022). The Nexus between Uncertainty Avoidance Culture and Risk-taking Behaviour in Entrepreneurial Firms’ Decision Making. Journal of Intercultural Management, 14(1), 104–132. https://doi.org/10.2478/joim-2022-0004
• Bello Ibrahim Kangiwa, O., Olabimitan Emmanuel Oludare, H., Sunusi Nassarawa, H., Shehu Abubakar, N., Efeoma, E. L., & Aminu Enefolá, H. (2024). Leveraging artificial intelligence for enhancing entrepreneurship and creativity in STEM education. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 4(8). https://berkeleypublications.com/bjerp/article/view/196
• Bolino, N. M. (2024). Teachers’ understandings of the impacts of scripted and narrowed curricula on curriculum autonomy: A mixed methods study.
• Bosman, L., & Fernhaber, S. (2021). Current approaches for cultivating the entrepreneurial mindset. In Springer eBooks (pp. 11–19). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79050-9_2
• Bragelien, J. J., & Voldsund, K. H. (2024). Entrepreneurship education through sustainability orientation – exploring a project initiating and structuring industry mentors. Procedia Computer Science, 239, 2098–2108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2024.06.397
• Chea, C. C. (2020). Quality Education: Entrepreneurship. In Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals (pp. 710–718). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95870-5_17
• Chen, K. (2024). Strategies for integrating ESG into a large organization: Case study of a large-scale Chinese high-tech manufacturing enterprise.
• Corbin, R. A., & Thomas, R. (2023). Community colleges as incubators of innovation: Unleashing entrepreneurial opportunities for communities and students. Taylor & Francis.
• De Araujo Ruiz, S. M., Martens, C. D. P., & Da Costa, P. R. (2020). Entrepreneurial university: an exploratory model for higher education. Journal of Management Development, 39(5), 705–722. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-08-2019-0363
• De La Puente Pacheco, M. A., Mahecha, J. D. R., Campo, M. M., & Torres, J. (2024). Effectiveness of online and blended teaching methods in developing professional engineering cross-curricular skills: A study in the context of Latin America. Research in Comparative and International Education, 19(2), 197–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/17454999241231089
• Fayolle, A., & Gailly, B. (2013). The Impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intention: Hysteresis and persistence. Journal of Small Business Management, 53(1), 75–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/jsbm.12065
• Ghanbaripour, A. N., Talebian, N., Miller, D., Tumpa, R. J., Zhang, W., Golmoradi, M., & Skitmore, M. (2024). A Systematic review of the impact of emerging technologies on student learning, engagement, and employability in built environment education. Buildings, 14(9), 2769. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092769
• Gill, A. S., Irwin, D., Long, P., Sun, L., Towey, D., Yu, W., Zhang, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2024). Enhancing learning in design for manufacturing and assembly: The effects of augmented reality and game-based learning on students' intrinsic motivation. Interactive Technology and Smart Education.
• Hägg, G., Haataja, V., Kurczewska, A., & McKelvie, A. (2024). Entrepreneurial responsibility: A conceptual framework to understand ethical dualism throughout the entrepreneurial process. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 48(4), 1110–1126. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587241227072
• Hopenhayn, H., Neira, J., & Singhania, R. (2022). From population growth to firm demographics: Implications for concentration, entrepreneurship, and the labor share. Econometrica, 90(4), 1879–1914.
• Hornsby, J. S., Naffziger, D. W., Kuratko, D. F., & Montagno, R. V. (1993). An interactive model of the corporate entrepreneurship process. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 17(2), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879301700203
• Joao, I. M., & Silva, J. M. (2020). Developing an entrepreneurial mindset among engineering students: Encouraging entrepreneurship into engineering education. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana De Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 15(3), 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1109/rita.2020.3008105
• Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R. E., & Mainemelis, C. (2014). Experiential learning theory: Previous research and new directions. In Perspectives on thinking, learning, and cognitive styles (pp. 227–247). Routledge.
• Koske, I., Wanner, I., Bitetti, R., & Barbiero, O. (2015). The 2013 update of the OECD’s database on product market regulation: Policy insights for OECD and non-OECD countries. OECD Economics Department Working Papers, 1200.
• Kozhevnikov, M., Evans, C., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2014). Cognitive Style as Environmentally Sensitive Individual Differences in Cognition: A Modern Synthesis and Applications in Education, Business, and Management. Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society, 15(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100614525555
• Kuhl, M. E. (2023). Entrepreneurial Mindset Learning (EML) in simulation education. 2018 Winter Simulation Conference (WSC). https://doi.org/10.1109/wsc60868.2023.10408528
• Lackéus, M. (2015). Entrepreneurship in education: What, why, when, how. Entrepreneurship360, Background Paper, European Commission: OECD.
• Laine, I., Pirrone, G., Phan, K. H. Q., Milotta, M., Väätänen, J., & Hagen, B. (2024). Integrating real-world entrepreneurship with international learning: insights from a blended intensive programme. Journal of International Education in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/jieb-08-2024-0112
• Larios-Hernandez, G. J., Walmsley, A., & Lopez-Castro, I. (2022). Theorising undergraduate entrepreneurship education. Springer.
• Lutz, L. (2024). Teachers igniting entrepreneurship. https://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/868311
• Markowska, M., & Wiklund, J. (2020). Entrepreneurial learning under uncertainty: exploring the role of self-efficacy and perceived complexity. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 32(7–8), 606–628. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2020.1713222
• Mars, M., & Hart, J. (2022). Entrepreneurial sensemaking and transdisciplinary graduate entrepreneurship education. Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education, 13(3), 297–314.