Evaluation of Entreprenuerial Propensity and Interests of Undergraduates in Entrepreneurship Education in Selected Universities, Osun State

Evaluation of Entreprenuerial Propensity and Interests of Undergraduates in Entrepreneurship Education in Selected Universities, Osun State

¹Stephen Ayobami OGUNGBOYE, ²Samuel Adewale OLADIIPO, ²Juliana Funmilayo AKINTUNDE-ADEYI, ³Bakare Akeem ALAGBE

¹Department of Entrepreneurship, Joseph Ayo Babalola University, Ikeji-Arakeji, Osun State,

²Department of Business Administration, Bowen University, Iwo, Osun State, Nigeria

³Department of Business Administration, Federal Polythecnic, Ede, Osun State, Nigeria

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8110049

Received: 24 October 2024; Accepted: 29 October 2024; Published: 02 December 2024

ABSTRACT

Entrepreneurial Propensity and Interest are one of the major contributing factors to the formation, growth and development of entrepreneurship capacity in individuals by promoting self-reliance and brings about initiatives. This study examined the entrepreneurial propensity and interest (EPI) of undergraduates in the selected Universities in Osun State. This study adopted a cross-sectional survey method whereby data for the study were primarily and secondarily sourced through the administration of a structured questionnaire as well as journals and magazines with396 questionnaires administered to the respondents and 350were retrieved, suitable for the research. Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics were employed for the data analysis. The descriptive statistics included frequency counts, percentages, mean and standard deviation while the inferential statistics were regression analysis and Chi-square used to test the hypotheses. The study reveals that 55.9% of the undergraduates were interested in starting their businesses after school; it was also revealed that 34.80% do not like the approach and method used in teaching entrepreneurship in their universities. The study concluded that Personal attitude is positively related to entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates and has a statistically significant effect on it. Also, government and other stakeholders support services are positively related to entrepreneurial intention of University undergraduates. The study recommended that the students in the universities should engage more in entrepreneurship activities with their little finance and universities should encourage entrepreneurship activities.

Keywords: Entrepreneur, Entrepreneurial intention, Entrepreneurial propensity, Entrepreneurship education, Entrepreneurship activities

INTRODUCTION

Entrepreneurial propensity is concerned with the inclination of a man or woman to start an entrepreneurial activity in the future (Wang & Wong, 2014). It is a key determinant of the movement of new challenge creation moderated by using exogenous variables such as household background, function in one’s family, parent(s) occupation, education, training, exposure and entrepreneurial activities (Krueger, 2012). Entrepreneurship orientation is to impact undergraduates with entrepreneurial operations which have been designed to speak and inculcate the capabilities needed to recognize enterprise opportunity, furnish and begin new trade ventures and entrepreneur pastimes in university undergraduates or trainees (Burn, 2008). Entrepreneurship is an essential catalyst or accelerator that drives the resources of countries as captured in most literatures besides being the engine via which new thoughts spring up, it is the “automobile” on which innovation rides(Krueger, 2012). It provides a proper potential of addressing different societal issues like unemployment among the young graduates. Entrepreneurs in this context are developed and are seen as “champions” of some kind who convert thoughts into reality and in the end create novel techniques which are recommended consistently into enterprises and the market place (Krueger, 2012). Entrepreneurship warrants monetary returns from distinct types of things to do and in an increased amount of unique senses; entrepreneurship creates wealth and reduces unemployment by suitable or peculiar entrepreneurship teaching and skills (Burn, 2008).The assumption is that entrepreneurial education and skill acquisition will have effect on inclinations and propensity of the students towards entrepreneurship and consequently students’ career occupation or profession by positively influencing their perceptions of the desirability and feasibility (Byabashaija, 2010). However, there is the desire to comprehend how entrepreneurship education influence students’ entrepreneurship propensity which is in line with Kennedy (2013) that says if a programme and insurance principle are to be developed to beautify entrepreneurial conduct and post-education incidence of entrepreneurship then, comprehension of the elements that affects and form an individual’s intentions or hobbies to go into entrepreneurship is critical. Very little has been achieved in checking out the relationships between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intentions, beliefs and attitudes of University undergraduates notwithstanding the proliferation of entrepreneurship instructions in the citadel of learning (Mangwende, 2011). This therefore is the motive behind this research work with selected Universities in Osun, both public and private owned as a case study. Kurafko (2016) opined that entrepreneurs are people who buy goods and services at a known price with the intention of selling them in the nearest future at a particular price bearing the inherent risks. Also, it could mean an innovator or a developer who recognizes and seizes an opportunity to convert these opportunities into valuable or marketable ideas by adding value to these ideas through effort, money, time and skills, assume the risks from the competitive market place arises from these

Entrepreneurship as a process: The definitions have cell focus in the first instance on the process of entrepreneurship, that is what involved and why it matters to individuals, organizations and society as a whole (Casson, 1999). For instance; Entrepreneurship is the process of creating something new of value by devoting the necessary time and efforts assuming the accompanying financial, psychic and social risks and receiving the resulting rewards of monetary and personal satisfaction and independence (Histric & Peters, 2012). Entrepreneurship is ‘the process by which an individual either on their own or inside an organization pursues opportunities without regards to the resources they currently control’. (Stevenson & Jarillo, 2002).The second part from the diagram above is entrepreneurship as a behavior. The definitions here are concerned with the highlight of the roles of particular individual (whom we call an entrepreneur) with specific behaviors which set them apart from each other. For instance: Entrepreneurship is ‘a way of thinking, reasoning and acting that is opportunity based, holistic in approach and leadership balanced. (Simon, 2009).

Entrepreneurship consists of ‘the competitive behaviors that drive the market process’ (Kirzner, 1999). The third part from the dimension of entrepreneurship is entrepreneurship as an outcome. The definitions focus on the results of entrepreneurship (as a process or set of behaviours). Outcomes are usually understood in terms of new products and services, innovations, new ventures and for the creation of value for the society. For example; Entrepreneurship is the introduction of new economic activity that leads to a change in the market place. (Simon, 2009).Entrepreneurship is the creation of new organizations. (Gartner, 1999). Entrepreneurship results in the creation, enhancement, realization and renewal of values not just for the owners but for all participants and stakeholders. (Timon & Spinelli, 2004). Entrepreneurship studies have been influenced by the economics, psychology, sociology and strategic management literatures providing established theoretical frameworks and Methodological tools (Gustafsson, 2004).This multi-disciplinary approach is not surprising given the complexity of the phenomenon entrepreneurship. Stearns &Hills, (1996) see the multi-disciplinary approach to entrepreneurship in a positive light suggesting this is one of the strengths of the field of entrepreneurship as it considers and borrows frameworks and methodologies from other legitimate social science. Despite past controversy over definition, the field is maturing and it is widely accepted that there are three underlying approaches in the entrepreneurship literature (Landstrom 2005): Entrepreneurship as a function of the market, the central theme is the economic function of the entrepreneur rather than his or her personality type (Hebert & Link, 2003). More recently, the research field of entrepreneurship has been defined as analysis of “how, by whom and with what” consequences the opportunities to produce future goods and services are discovered, measured and exploited. (Shane &Venkataraman, 2000). As regards by “whom”, an electric definition of the entrepreneur that has become increasingly acceptable is suggested by Wennekers & Thurick (1999). The entrepreneur: Is innovative that is perceives and create new opportunities; Operates under uncertainty and introduces products to the market, decides on location and the form and use of resources; and manage his business and thrives with others for a share in the market.

Entrepreneurial Propensity and Interest: This is a strong natural tendency to embark on entrepreneurial activities such as offering a product, process or services or an intense natural inclination or preferences for entrepreneurial activities and the developing of passion for entrepreneurship.  Krenegie et al, (2000) gives more complicated view of propensity and interest of an individual to become an entrepreneur. They argue that the Entrepreneurial Propensity and Interest (EPI) are subjective and influenced by the social economic, political and cultural environment. Along the same line, Burn (2008) proposed that the propensity and interest of an individual to become an entrepreneur is reflected in the following four features; the personal character traits, Antecedent influences, Situational factors, the culture of the society.

Entrepreneurship Education: This refers to the education which assists the students to develop positive attitudes, innovation and skills for self-reliance rather than depending on the government for employment. According to European Union Commission (2010) entrepreneurship education seeks to provide students with knowledge, skills and motivation to encourage entrepreneurial studies in a variety of settings. Entrepreneurship education is the type of education designed to change the orientation and attitude of the students and the process will equip them with the skills and knowledge to enable them start and manage a business (Agu, 2006).

Entrepreneurship Education in Nigeria: Entrepreneurship education is oriented in the direction of distinct ways of realizing opportunities. This is what makes entrepreneurship education special in its views on cognizance of opportunity. Entrepreneurship education seeks to supply undergraduates with the knowledge, capabilities and motivation to encourage entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship education according to Paul (2005) is structured to gain the following targets to provide functional education for the youth that will allow them to be self-employed and self-reliant; supply the undergraduates with enough education that will encourage them to be creative and modern in figuring out novel enterprise opportunities; to serve as a catalyst for monetary increase and development; gives tertiary institution undergraduates with enough education in risk management, to make positivebearing feasible, to limit excessive rule of poverty as nicely as create employment generation. Entrepreneurship is a key driver of our economy, wealth and an excessive majority of jobs are created with the aid of small enterprises commenced by entrepreneurially mined persons many of whom go on to create huge enterprises.

NUC and Issues of Entrepreneurship Education in Nigeria: The federal government of Nigeria in year 2006 set up entrepreneurship research and made it necessary for undergraduates of higher institutions irrespective of course of study and has been generally adopted by most universities as an obligatory and conventional research path for students. The standard goal of entrepreneurship education is to continually foster entrepreneurship culture amongst university undergraduates with a view of not only teaching them but to help undergraduates have organizing skills and also maintaining sustainable enterprise venture. The NUC was once given presidential directives via the Ministry of Education to supervise and co-ordinate the programme of introducing entrepreneurship training in Nigerian institutions of higher learning in collaboration with all regulatory bodies of high institutions; the National Board for Technical Education (NBTE), National Commission for Colleges of Education (NCCE) to be dealt with via the committee set up by the way of the federal government. NUC is playing a crucial function in the transmission and implementation of federal authorities policy and components of the predicted consequence were; setting up entrepreneurship education in all Nigerian Universities, organizing the curriculum for the course, the improvement of teachers guide, practice guide and students’ textbook for sale as well as capacity construction for at least ten lecturers in every university, creation of entrepreneurship assets and know-how centre in the NUC potential construction for at least ten lecturers in all universities and improvement of Master and Ph Dprogrammes in some chosen universities. The NUC has with many organizations and institutions like National Science Foundation of the United states of America, the British Council and a host of others have all signed Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with NUC to create awareness about the need to acquire the entrepreneurial training (Rufai, 2006).

Entrepreneurship and Economic Development: One of the contributors to economic development economics is dual economy models, explaining the structural transformation of underdeveloped economies. Gries &Naudé (2010) expanded the Lewis-model distinction between a traditional and modern sector with the micro-foundations of optimizing households, firms and labour market matching. It is widely believed that entrepreneurship is beneficial for financial growth and development. Entrepreneurship has been remarkably resurgent over the past three decades in nations that achieved substantial poverty reduction (Naude, 2013). The idea that entrepreneurship and financial growth are very closely and positively linked together has undoubtedly made its way since the early works of Schumpeter. Schumpeter (1984), who is, perhaps, believed to be the first major economist to analyze the role of entrepreneurship in economic development, attributed innovation to the entrepreneur. Progress has been hampered by institutional deficiencies and widespread bureaucratic and political corruption (Osalor, 2010). Wealth creation and poverty reduction are key benefits of entrepreneurship and financial increase and development primarily by generatingemployment and foster the improvement of micro, small and medium enterprises in Nigeria.

Conceptual Model of Entrepreneurship

Source: Adopted from Byabashaija et al. (2010)

Conceptual Framework of the Study

Conceptual Framework for Entrepreneurial Propensity of Undergraduate Students based on Theoretical and Empirical review of Literature.

Source: Researcher, (2021)

Theoretical Review: There are various theories of entrepreneurship which may be explained from the viewpoints of economists, sociologists and psychologists. These theories have been supported and given by various thinkers over a period of more than two and half centuries. Some of these theories relevant to this research include:

Schumpeter Theory of Innovation: An important theory of entrepreneurship was initially propounded by Schumpeter (1984) and forwarded by Wang & Wong, (2014): He observes entrepreneurship as the catalyst that disrupts the stationary circular flow of the economy and thereby initiates and sustains the process of development. Embarking upon ‘new combinations’ of the factors of production which he succinctly terms ‘innovation’ and the entrepreneur activates the economy to a new level of development. Schumpeter introduced a concept of innovation as key factor in entrepreneurship in addition to assuming risks and organizing factors of production. Schumpeter defines entrepreneurship as “a creative activity”. An Innovator is a person who brings new products or services into economy, given the status of an entrepreneur. He regards innovation as a tool of the entrepreneur, The entrepreneur is viewed as the ‘engine of growth’, He sees the opportunity for introducing new products, new markets, new sources of supply, new forms of industrial organization or for the development of newly discovered resources. The concept of innovation and its corollary development embraces five functions: The introduction of a new product with which consumers are not yet familiar or introduction of a new quality of an existing product, The introduction of a new method of production that is not yet tested by experience in the branch of manufacture concerned, which is by no means to be founded upon a discovery scientifically new and can also exist in a new way of handling a commodity commercially, The opening of a new market that is a market on to which the particular branch of manufacturer of the country in question has not previously entered regardless of whether or not this market has existed before, Conquest of a new source of supply of raw material and the carrying out of the new organization of any industry. Schumpeter is the first major theorist to put the human agent at the centre of the process of economic development. He is very explicit about the economic function of the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur is the prime mover in economic development; his function, to innovate or carry out new combinations. Schumpeter makes a distinction between an innovator and an inventor. An inventor discovers new methods and new materials. On the contrary, an innovator is one who utilizes or applies inventions and discoveries in order to make new combinations. An inventor is concerned with his technical work of invention whereas an entrepreneur converts the technical work into economic performance. An innovator is more than an inventor because he does not only originate as the inventor does but goes much farther in exploiting the invention commercially.

McClelland theory of achievement for need: Characteristics of entrepreneur have two features according to McClelland; first one is doing things in a new and better way and second one is decision making under uncertainty. McClelland emphasizes successful orientation as most vital component for entrepreneurs. Individuals with high successful orientation are no longer influenced by issues of money or any different external incentives. Gains and incentives are simple way to measure the success of entrepreneurs with high successful orientation. People with high achievement (N-Ach) are not persuaded by cash rewards as similar to persons with low achievement. The latter classes are organized to work tougher for cash and other different incentives. On the other hand, earning is only a measure of success and competency for persons with excessive achievement need. McClelland, in his article ‘The Achieving Society’, he formulated a theory based on his findingsthat entrepreneurship subsequently relies on motivation. It is the need for achievement (N-Ach), the feel of doing and getting things done that promote entrepreneurship. According to him, N-Ach is an extra-ordinary stable personality features rooted in experiences in middle childhood through house holdsocialization and child-learning training which stress standards of excellence, material warmth, self-reliance training.

Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB): Ajzen’s theories of planned behaviour (TPB) is one of the most popular, frequent and well know theoretical frameworks accepted for analyzing human behaviour. It is a section of the larger family of intentional models that have been used to provide an explanation for the emergence of entrepreneurial behaviour (Du Toit & Muofhe, 2011). The TPB was at forehand applied to the study of entrepreneurship by means Krueger & Carsrud (2003) who tried to suit it for compatibility with Shapero & Sokol’s intentions theory; their manuscript explained that entrepreneurship intentions depended in part from external influences on entrepreneurial recreation as properly as the perceived attractiveness of the entrepreneurial behaviour, perceived social norms about entrepreneurial behaviours and the perceived self-efficacy or control for entrepreneurial behaviours all problem to exogenous influences that may also play a part in the improvement of beliefs and attitudes (Fayolle, 2006). According to Ajzen’s theory, the formation of intention is preceded and guided via three variables which are attitude towards a given behaviour, subjective norms and perception of control over the behaviour or actually what (Du Toit & Muofhe, 2011), referred to the behavioural, normative and manage beliefs. Attitude towards behaviour is the extent to which anyone personally positively or negatively values being an entrepreneur whilst perceived social norms measure social valuation or perceived social strain to elevate or not to carry out entrepreneurial behavior. Perceived behavioural control is expressed as the perception of the easiness or difficulty in fulfilling the behaviour of interest which is becoming an entrepreneur. Furthermore, Ajzen (2011); Du Toit & Muofhe (2011) postulated that, behavioural beliefs produce a favorable or unfavorable attitude toward the behaviour; normative beliefs result in perceived social pressure or subjective norm and control beliefs give rise to perceived behavioural control. In combination, attitudes toward the behaviour, subjective norm, and perception of behavioural control lead to the formation of a behavioural intention. This theory forms the premise for this study.

Empirical Review: Empirical studies exploring the extent to which entrepreneurial orientation influences the decision to become an entrepreneur are steadily increasing (Byabashaija; Katono & Isabalija, 2010; Muofhe & Du Toit, 2011) and they have mostly found a positive impact of entrepreneurship education courses/programs at universities on perceived attractiveness and feasibility of new venture initiation. Literature reveals that entrepreneurship education creates self-sufficient, motivated and enterprising individuals who leave the education system with skills to start their own business or abilities to create innovation in established organizations. However, most researchers noted an increase in individual self-reported intentions to begin a business after exposure to certain types of entrepreneurship education. Generally findings from theoretical and empirical review suggested positive links between intentions to become an entrepreneur and opened to entrepreneurship education. These findings suggest that entrepreneurship orientation can influence student entrepreneurial propensity. In some cases the choices to become an entrepreneur and subsequent entrepreneurial careers have been positively correlated to entrepreneurship orientation (Allen, 2009; Stokes, 2010). Researchers have focused on a wide array of potential drivers, motivations or antecedents, of entrepreneurial activity (Ahmed, 2010). According to a research carried out by Muhammad, Aliyu& Ahmed (2015) on entrepreneurial intention among Nigerian University students, the research uses a modified version of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) as the main framework of examining entrepreneurial intention. A sample size of 205 was drawn from Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University (ATBU). Data was analyzed using structural equation modeling. The findings show that entrepreneurial attitude, subjective norm and power of behavioural control are all significant predictors of entrepreneurial intention. In addition, other indirect relationships were also found to be significant. Pulka, Rikwentishe & Ibrahim (2014) did a research on the evaluation of undergraduates’ attitude towards entrepreneurship education in selected universities in North East Nigeria. The study was conducted to examine the cognitive, affective and behavioural components of attitude of students towards Entrepreneurship education in the universities in Nigerian. The respondents were students from five selected universities in north eastern Nigeria. Purposive sampling was used in selection of the universities while simple random sampling was employed in selection of the respondents. Structured questionnaire was the instrument used and it was based on Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree on four points. The data was analyzed by SPSS version. The study falls within the domain of descriptive study. The results indicated that the students cognitive component of attitude is rated at 84.31%, affective at 83.34%, while behavioural component at 78.72%. The overall attitude is at 82.12%.Ekundayo&Babatunde (2014) carried out a research on the impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intentions among Nigerian undergraduates; the research provides understanding of the entrepreneurial intentions of small sampled Nigerian undergraduates through stratified and simple random sampling. It was revealed in the study that exposure to entrepreneurship education influences students’ intentions of becoming self-employed. It was also discovered that most students were not very confident about their intentions due to fear of finance, failure and lack of experience in business management. The study concludes that despite knowledge of entrepreneurship education as a contributing factor in the reduction of unemployment, Nigerian youth requires additional supports to overcome the unforeseen challenges. This chapter explained how data was collected, collated and analyzed in the study area as well as the research design, research population, sampling technique and size, sources of data, method of data collection, validity, reliability and analysis of the data collected to evaluate entrepreneurial propensity and interests of undergraduate in selected universities in Osun State. This study adopted cross-sectional survey method. This research was undertaken to evaluate entrepreneurial propensity and interests of undergraduate students in selected universities in Osun State. This method is adopted by the researcher because of vast number of Undergraduates involved in the study area. The study area of this research was undergraduates of the selected Universities in Osun State. These Universities are Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ife, representing Federal University; Osun State University, representing State University and Bowen University, Iwo, representing Private University. The population sample of this research comprises of all undergraduates in the selected universities with the population of 5000undergraduates in Bowen University, 12000 undergraduates in Osun state University and 25,000undergraduates in Obafemi Awolowo University. This study adopted the use of a probability sampling method known to be simple random sampling technique for selection of its respondents as a result of the vast population of the study area. Sample size was selected from all the faculties in the selected universities. Undergraduates was picked at random using simple random sampling technique and Taro Yamane (1973) formula was used to determine sample size for the population of undergraduates as shown below;

n =        N     

        1 + N(e)²

n – The sample size

N – The population size

e – The acceptable sampling error in %

The acceptable sampling error in % at 5% acceptable sampling error

      42000                        =           396.22

 1+42000(0.05)²

N– Population of undergraduates (42,000)

n- Samples size of undergraduates (396)

Source: Researcher, (2021)

The source of data collected for this research work was from both primary and secondary source. The procedure employed in the collection of primary needed for this research study was through administration of copies of questionnaires and secondary data was through journals, papers and magazines. Copies of questionnaire were used to analyze the entrepreneurial propensity and interests of undergraduates in the selected private and public universities in Osun State, 396 respondents were administered in the universities. The questionnaire that was used for this research work was divided into six sections: Opening letter: Section A: Bio-data which includes Name of School, Gender, age, type of school (private or public) etc. Section B: Questions on the level of entrepreneurial propensity of students which was made up of 5 items, Section C: Questions on factors that influence entrepreneurial propensity of the students which also contained 5 factors

Section D: Questions on personal attitude (PA) of students which contained 5 items, Section E: Questions on stakeholders-support services which contained 9 items, Section F: General questions on entrepreneurship Propensity of the student which contained 6 items. All questions are with 5 point-likert scale of Strongly Agree, Agree, Undecided, Disagree and Strongly Disagree and will be scored 5,4,3,2 and 1 respectively. To ensure face and content validity and reliability of the questionnaire used in this study, the researcher’s supervisor read through and made necessary corrections. Modifications and corrections were also made on the items in the instrument by experts in the field to prepare a reliable final draft that was administered. The pilot study was conducted by administering the copies of the questionnaire to undergraduates in the selected university through their individual entrepreneurship centres. Visit to the universities selected for the data collection exercise was within two weeks. Obafemi Awolowo University was the first university to be visited followed by Osun State University and then BOWEN University. The independent variables are the entrepreneurial propensity and interests while the dependent variables are personal attitude

            Y=f(X)

            Y= entrepreneurial propensity and interests.

            X= personal attitude

            Where: Y = f(X1, X2, X3, X4……..)

            X1 = Entrepreneurial Orientation

            X2 = Personality Traits

            X3 = Age

            X4 = Finance

            X5 = Family Background

            X6 = Environmental situations

            X7 = Gender factors

            Where: Y = f (Y1, Y2, Y3, Y4)

            Y1 = Job creation

            Y2 = Wealth and poverty reduction

            Y3 = Economic growth and development

            Y4 = Innovation and invention.

            Y5 = Changing of economy from traditional to modern system

For this study, both descriptive and inferential statistical tools were used to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics involving the use of mean, frequency distribution and percentage will be used to determine the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and the relationship between the variables. The inferential statistics involved the use of multiple regression and Chi-square(x2). The R statistics was used to analyze the questionnaires administered. Frequency analysis: it has purpose to measure the pattern of respondent’s information (such as age, gender, education level and marital status) as this was analyzed using frequencies and percentages. Descriptive tools which include tables were used to present information regarding demographic analysis of the respondents after which conclusions was drawn.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter deals with the presentation of data collected through questionnaire administered and analyzed through the use of simple tables, frequency counts, mean, standard deviation, correlation and regression. The result and detailed discussions are also presented here to further show how the objectives of the study were achieved.

Response Rate

General Response Rate

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Showed the response rate from the three Universities considered for this study. The data revealed that 350 questionnaires were retrieved from the respondents out of 396 administered. This represents 88.4% of the total questionnaire administered.

Table 1: Representation of Respondents by University

Source: Field Survey, 2021

The data in Table 1: the response rate by University, where 55% of the respondents are from OAU, 23.7% are from Bowen while 21.3% are from UNIOSUN. This showed that majority of the respondents are from OAU. This is because OAU has the largest population size of 25,000 undergraduates.

Personal Data

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents According to Colleges/Faculties

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Table 2 showed the different colleges/faculties of the respondents where 27.8% were from social and management sciences, 22.2% from health sciences, 13.5% from education, 10.4% from sciences, 9.8%from Computing and Communications, 8.0% from Liberal Studies,5.7% from Law and 2.6% from Agriculture.

Table 3: Distribution of Respondents According to Course of Study

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Table 3 showed the different courses of study of the respondents from the eight colleges/faculties. Different courses were represented in the study and expressed in percentage. The percentage of the respondents in the table shows the degree of their involvement in entrepreneurship education.

Table 4: Representation of Respondents by Level

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Moreover, Table 4 showed the representation of the respondents by their level in the University. The data revealed that majority of the respondents are in 300 levels which is 31.7% of the total respondents. Also, 26.7% are in 400 levels, 26.3% are in 200 levels while 8.5% are in 100 level, 5.9% are in 500 level and 0.9% are in 600 level students respectively.

Table 5: Distribution of Respondents According to Marital Status

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Table 5 showed the distribution of the respondents according to marital status where it revealed that 98.3% are single while only 1.7% are married. This means that most of the undergraduates met in the field are single.

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents According to Family Type

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Also, the data in Table 6 showed the family type of the respondents where 87.8% of them are from monogamous family while only 12.2% are from a polygamous family. This result showed that majority of the students who responded to this study are from a monogamous family. This means that the family type (Monogamy and Polygamy) affect or influence the propensity and interest of undergraduates towards entrepreneurship.

Table 7: Distribution of Respondents According to Gender

Source: Field Survey, 2021

The data in Table 7 showed the gender distributions of the respondents where 52% of the respondents are male while only 48% are female. This showed that majority of the respondents are male students. This means that the frequency of male undergraduates is more that their female counterpart.

Table 8: Distribution of Respondents According to Positions in the Family

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Table 8 showed the positions of respondents in their respective families. Majority of the respondents are first born (30%), 25.6% are second in their respective families, 20% are third, 16.1 are fourth while 8.3% are fifth. This means that the frequencies of undergraduates that are first born are more as compared to other position in the family.

Table 9: Father’s Educational Qualification

Source: Field Survey, 2021

The data in Table 9 showed the educational qualification of the fathers of the respondents. It was discovered that 36.1% of the fathers of the respondents have BSc, 16.7% have HND, 15% have NCE, 11.7% have MSc, 10.6% have PhD, 5% have SSCE, 2.5% have primary school certificate while 2.4% have OND. This means the higher the degree/qualification of father determines the entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates.

Table 10: Mother’s Educational Qualification

Source: Field Survey, 2021

The data in Table 10 showed the educational qualification of the mothers of the respondents. It was discovered that 35.4% have BSc, 19.8% have NCE, 13.7% have MSc, 10.4% have HND, 10.2% have OND, 4.3% have PhD, 3.7% have SSCE while 2.5% have primary school certificate.

This means the higher the degree/qualification of mother determines the entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates but decline at the highest level of qualification.

Table 11: Father’s Occupation

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Table 11 showed the occupation of the fathers of the respondents. Different occupations were represented in the study, and it was discovered that majority of them are teachers (13.8%), this is followed by civil servant who have 11.3% representation. Legal practitioners and Vet Doctors have the lowest representation of 2.8% and 2% in the study respectively. This means that the teachers and civil servants have more undergraduates in the selected universities.

Table 12: Mother’s Occupation

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Table 12 showed the occupation of the mothers of the respondents. Different occupations were also represented in the study, and it was discovered that majority of them are teachers (13.5%), followed by Traders with 11.4%. Fashion designers (5%) and Medical Lab Scientists have the lowest representation in the study. This means that teachers and traders have more undergraduates in the selected universities.

Analysis Based on Research Objectives

Degree of Entrepreneurial Propensity and Interests among Undergraduates

Table 13: Level of Entrepreneurial Propensity (EP)

Source: Field Survey, 2021

The study sought to investigate the degree of entrepreneurial propensity and interest among undergraduate students in the Universities under consideration. The data in Table 13 showed that entrepreneurial propensity was investigated through students’ interest in business, savings to start a business, consideration for business if capital (finance) is available, starting a business will help actualize entrepreneurial dream and love for entrepreneurial class or seminar.

It was discovered that 34.6% of the respondents strongly agreed that they have interest in starting a business, 21.3% also agreed to this position, 14.4% disagreed, 14.6% strongly disagreed while 15% were undecided about this point of view. It therefore showed that majority of the respondents have a strong interest in starting a business after graduating.

Furthermore, 21.9% strongly agreed that they are saving towards starting a business, 32.6% also strongly agreed, 17% disagreed, 13.9% strongly disagreed while 14.6% were undecided. This revealed that majority of the respondents affirmed that they are saving towards starting a business in the future which is an affirmation of their intention to be self-employed after graduating.

The result of the third statement in the table showed that 36.7% of the respondents strongly agreed, 21.3% agreed, 15.9% disagreed, 11.7% strongly disagreed while 14.4% were undecided that they will only consider business if there is finance. This mean that majority of the respondents agreed that they will consider starting a business if there is fund (finance).

Moreover, the result showed that 30.7% strongly agreed, 23.1% agreed, 16.7% disagreed, 12.6% strongly disagreed while 16.9% were undecided that starting a business will be a dream come true for them. This also means that majority (53.8%) of the respondents are hopeful to start a business after graduating. Lastly, the result also revealed that 26.1% of the respondents strongly agreed, 23.9% agreed, 17.4% disagreed, 16.5% strongly disagreed while 16.1% were undecided about going for entrepreneurship class or seminar. Therefore, majority of the respondents agreed that they like attending entrepreneurship class or seminar which will prepare them to likely start their own business after graduating. The weighted mean shown in Table 7 for the respective entrepreneurial propensity variables showed that finance as a determinant of business start-up by undergraduate students (x ̅=3.55) ranked highest among all other variables which means that finance is the first consideration students give whenever they are considering entrepreneurial venture. Interest in starting a business (x ̅=3.47) is the second consideration by undergraduates as regards entrepreneurial venture. Entrepreneurial class or seminar (x ̅=3.26) ranked lowest among all the variables used in measuring the entrepreneurial propensity of undergraduates.

Factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity and interests of the undergraduates

Table 14: Factors Influencing Entrepreneurial Propensity

Source: Field Survey, 2021

Factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates were examined in the study. The result shown in Table 14 revealed that 14.1% of the respondents strongly agreed, 20.7% agreed, 22.6% disagreed, 23% strongly disagreed while 19.6% were undecided about the fact that they do not like the approach and methods used by lecturers taking entrepreneurship education in their respective universities. Invariably, the result means that majority of the respondents like the approach and method used by lecturers in teaching entrepreneurship education. Furthermore, 19.1% of the respondents strongly agreed, 25.2% agreed, 24.4% disagreed, 17.8% strongly disagreed while 13.5% were undecided that they do not have the technical know-how to start a business. This result revealed that majority (44.3% as against 42.2%) of the respondents does not have the idea in terms of the technical know-how about starting a business. Also, the result also revealed that 15.7% strongly agreed, 15.4% agreed, 24.4% disagreed, 29.4% strongly disagreed while 15% were undecided about having no exposure as regards entrepreneurship class. This means that majority of the respondents are opposed to this and it can be affirmed that they have been introduced to entrepreneurship class recently. In addition, the result showed that 13.9% strongly agreed, 17.6% agreed, 20.7% disagreed, 25.9% strongly disagreed while 21.9% were undecided as to their preference for reading to business. The study deduced that majority of the respondents want to have a business rather than study in school. Lastly, the result showed that 21.5% strongly agreed, 21.5% agreed, 19.1% disagreed, 21.9% strongly disagreed while 16.1% were undecided about a conducive environment. This means that majority of the respondents agreed that the environment is not conducive for business. Moreover, the weighted mean revealed that business idea (technical know-how) ranked highest (x ̅=3.03) among all the factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates. Conducive environment (x ̅=3.02) also ranked second in terms of the factors examined in the study to influence entrepreneurial propensity. Exposure (x ̅=2.64) in terms of entrepreneurial class ranked lowest among all the factors examined. This asserts that entrepreneurship education should be more intensified among the undergraduates in the selected Universities

Effect of Personal Attitude on the Entrepreneurial Propensity and Interests of undergraduates

Table 4.16: Regression Result

Source: Field Survey, 2021

From the result in Table 15 showed the correlation result showed that personal attitude has a positively relationship with entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates (R=30.3%). This means that the relationship between personal attitudes is 30.3%. Meanwhile, the adjusted R² of 9% suggests that the personal attitude accounts for only 9% of the variability in entrepreneurial propensity. Among all the factors explaining the changes in entrepreneurial propensity, personal attitude explains 9% of the level of change. Overall, the regression model showed statistical significance for entrepreneurial propensity (F_(1,538)=54.49^***, p<0.05). Moreover, the unstandardized Beta coefficient showed that personal attitude (-0.238, p<0.05) has a negative effect on entrepreneurial propensity nonetheless this effect is statistically significant to entrepreneurial propensity.

Hypothesis Testing I

The result in Table 15 was also used in testing the hypothesis of the study which says that “personal attitude of undergraduates do not have any significant influence on their entrepreneurial propensity”. The regression result showed that personal attitude has a statistically significant influence on entrepreneurial propensity of undergraduates (-0.238, p<0.05). This means that personal attitude affects and influences the entrepreneurial propensity and interests of Undergraduates in the selected Universities. Impacts of Government and other stakeholders support services on the entrepreneurial intentions of University undergraduates

Table 16: Impact of Government and Stakeholders Support Services

Source: Field Survey, 2020

The result in Table 16 showed the responses as regards the impact of Government and other stakeholders support services on entrepreneurial intention. The result showed that 25.4% strongly agreed, 22.4% agreed, 14.8% disagreed, 16.7% strongly disagreed while 20.7% were undecided that the University helps in the development of creative ideas. Moreover, 21.5% strongly agreed, 30% agreed, 16.5% disagreed, 13.3% strongly disagreed while 18.7% were undecided about the fact that their University provide adequate knowledge for their entrepreneurial development. This means that the Universities under the study strictly complied with NUC that each University and other higher institutions should provide adequate knowledge for their entrepreneurial development. Furthermore, 23.9% strongly agreed, 29.8% agreed, 17.4% disagreed, 12.6% strongly disagreed and 16.3% undecided about the fact that University helps in the development of their entrepreneurial skills and ability. Also, 25.9% strongly agreed, 24.3% agreed, 16.3% disagreed, 15.4% strongly disagreed while 18.1% undecided about the support they get from family member concerning their entrepreneurial aspirations. In terms of getting support from friends, 20.9% strongly agreed, 25.4% agreed, 14.1% disagreed, 16.9% strongly disagreed and 22.8% were undecided about this stand point. The study also sought responses concerning the difficulty in taking loans from banks, 18.7% strongly agreed, 25.7% agreed, 21.9% disagreed, 14.1% strongly disagreed while 19.6% were undecided about this stand point. From the result, 17% strongly agreed, 18.5% agreed, 24.8% disagreed, 16.1% strongly disagreed while 23.5% were undecided about the fact that Nigerian laws have adverse effect on entrepreneurial aspirations of individuals in running their businesses. More so, 19.8% strongly agreed, 25.9% agreed, 14.3% disagreed, 13.7% strongly disagreed and 26.3% undecided about the fact that entrepreneurs are encouraged by a structural system which include the private, public and other non-governmental organizations. Lastly, 23.7% strongly agreed, 20% agreed, 17.4% disagreed, 20.6% strongly disagreed while 18.3% undecided that the economy has provided numerous opportunities for entrepreneurs. Moreover, the weighted mean revealed that University helps in developing technical skills and ability ranked highest with (x ̅=3.36), while provision of adequate entrepreneurial knowledge for undergraduates ranked second with a (x ̅=3.31), and the adversity of Nigerian laws in the running of business (x ̅=3.00) ranked lowest among all the factors considered as to impact entrepreneurial intention. Impacts of Government and other stakeholders support services on the entrepreneurial intentions of University undergraduates

Table 17: Regression Result

Source: Field Survey, 2021

From the result in Table 17, it showed that government and other stakeholders support services has a positively relationship with entrepreneurial intention of University undergraduates (R=33.8%). Meanwhile, the adjusted R² of 10.9% suggests that government and other stakeholders support services accounts for only 10.9% of the variability in entrepreneurial intention. Overall, the regression model showed statistical significance for entrepreneurial intention (F_(3,536)=23.032^***, p<0.05). Moreover, the unstandardized Beta coefficients showed that University (-0.10, p<0.05), family and friends (-0.22, p<0.05), and Government agencies(-0.31, p<0.05 as other stakeholders giving support services to entrepreneurs have negative and statistically significant effects on entrepreneurial intentions of University undergraduates.

Hypothesis Testing II

The result in Table 17 was also used in testing the second hypothesis of the study which is stated as “stakeholders support services for entrepreneurial engagements are not significant in predicting entrepreneurship interests of the university undergraduates”. The regression result above showed that the unstandardized Beta coefficients showed that University (-0.10, p<0.05), family and friends (-0.22, p<0.05), and Government agencies (-0.31, p<0.05) as other stakeholders giving support services to entrepreneurs have negative and statistically significant effects on entrepreneurial intentions of University undergraduates. By this result, the null hypothesis is rejected and the study concludes that stakeholders support services for entrepreneurial engagements are statistically significant in predicting entrepreneurial interests of university undergraduates.

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The study discovered among other things that finance as a determinant of business start-up by undergraduates (x ̅ = 3.55) ranked highest among all other variables while entrepreneurial class or seminar (x ̅ = 3.26) ranked lowest among all the variables used. This finding supports the works by Odia & Oda, (2019) where it was discovered that finance is very important in starting business, due to inadequate of fund it makes it hard for undergraduates to engage in entrepreneurship activities even when they have attended entrepreneurial class or seminar. Factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates were examined in the study and it was revealed that business idea (technical know-how) ranked highest (x ̅=3.03) among all the factors influencing entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates while exposure (x ̅=2.64) in terms of entrepreneurial class ranked lowest among all the factors examined. The findings of Allen, (2009) and Stokes, (2010) which postulated that choices to become an entrepreneur and subsequent entrepreneurial careers have been positively correlated to business idea and entrepreneurship orientation and this was also upheld based on what was discovered in this study. The study reported a positive relationship between personal attitude and entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates (R=30. Therefore, the study of Sharaf, El-Gharbawy & Ragheb, (2018) reported the same result where it was discovered that personal attitude towards entrepreneurship showed significant effect on entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates while there is an insignificant effect of all other variables. The adjusted R² of 9% suggests that the personal attitude accounts for only 9% of the variability in entrepreneurial propensity. In the works of Sharaf, El-Gharbawy & Ragheb, (2018) a higher R² was reported. The unstandardized Beta coefficient showed that personal attitude (-0.238, p<0.05) has a statistically negative effect on entrepreneurial propensity. This led to the rejection of the first null hypothesis and the study concludes that personal attitude has significant influence on entrepreneurial propensity of undergraduates. The works by Hendieh, Aoun & Osta, (2019) also reported a similar result.The result also revealed that government and other stakeholders support services has a positive relationship with entrepreneurial intention of University undergraduates (R=33.8%). This also supports the work of Ingabo, (2017) and Belas, Dvorsky, Tyll & Zvarikova (2017) which reported that government and stakeholders have positive relationship with entrepreneurial propensity and interest of undergraduates. Meanwhile, the adjusted R² of 10.9% suggests that government and different stakeholders support services accounts for only 10.9% of the variability in entrepreneurial interest. This is not different from the findings reported by Ingabo, (2017) in his work. Nevertheless, the unstandardized Beta coefficients showed that University (-0.10, p<0.05), family and friends (-0.22, p<0.05), and Government agencies (-0.31, p<0.05) as other stakeholders giving support services to entrepreneurs have negative and statistically significant effects on entrepreneurial intentions of University undergraduates. This also led to the rejection of the null hypothesis and the study concludes that stakeholders support services for entrepreneurial engagements are significant in predicting entrepreneurship interests of the university undergraduates.

REFERENCES

1. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour, organization behaviour and human decision processes. Journal of Entrepreneurship 50(1), 179–211.
2. Allen, K.R. (2009). Launching New Ventures. 5^th Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
3. Burn, P. (2008).Corporate Entrepreneurship. 2^nd Edition, Basingstoke Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan.
4. Byabashaija, W. K. I. (2010). The Impact of college entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurial attitudes and intention to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Entrepreneurship in 2(3), 37-52.
5. Byabashaija, W., Katono, I. & Isabalija, A.H. (2010). The impact of college entrepreneurial education on entrepreneurial attitudes and intentions to start a business in Uganda. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 16(1), 98-109.
6. Casson, M.C. (1999). The Entrepreneur: An Economic Theory. London: Martin Robertson.
7. Du Toit, W.F. & Muofhe, N. J. (2011). Entrepreneurial education’s and Entrepreneurial role models’ influence on career choice. Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(5), 34-50
8. Ekundayo B. B & Babatunde E. D. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and attitude of undergraduate students to self-employment in Mubi, Adamawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Education and Practice, 4(1), 25-62.
9. Gries, T. & Naudé, W.A. (2010). Entrepreneurship and structural economic transformation. Journal of Small Business Economics, 34 (1), 13 – 29.
10. Henderson, R. & Robertson, M. (2000). Who wants to be an entrepreneur? Young adult attitudes to entrepreneurship as a career. International Journal of Career Development, 5(6), 31-59.
11. Hill, S. (2003). Graduate entrepreneurship education: Aninternational consumer study. Journal of entrepreneurship education, 3(4), 431-522.
12. Krueger, N.F. (2012). The cognitive psychology of entrepreneurship. In Acs, Z. and Audretsch, D.B. (Eds), Handbook of Entrepreneurial Research, Kluwer Law International, London, 105-140
13. Krueger, N. F. & Carried, A. L. (2003). Entrepreneurial intentions, applying the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 2(3) 315-330.
14. Krueger, N., Reilly, M. & Carsrud, A.L. (2000).Competing models of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business Venturing, 15(2), 411–432.
15. Landstrom, H. (2005). Pioneers in entrepreneurship and small business research: International studies in entrepreneurship, Springer Science and Business, International Journal of entrepreneurship and development, 1(2), 21-40.
16. Mangwende, W. (2011). Cross cultural investigation of entrepreneurship efficacy beliefs of rural and urban youth in Mashobnaland Central Province, Zimbabwe, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 5(4), 20-31.
17. Muhammad, A.D, Aliyu, S. & Ahmed, S. (2015). Behaviours and entrepreneurial intention: Empirical findings about Nigerian University students. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 9(1), 20-38.
18. National Bureau of Statistics (2011).Statistical analysis of unemployment among youth in Nigeria. An empirical review, 28-30
19. Osalor, P. (2010, April 4). Understanding entrepreneurship and its relevant to Nigerian society. Vanguard Newspaper.
20. Pulka, B.M., Rikwentishe, R. & Ibrahim, B. (2014). Evaluation of students ‘attitude towards entrepreneurship education in selected Universities in North East Nigeria. International Journal of Business Research, 3(2), 175-183.
21. Schumpeter, J. A. (1984). The theory of economics. Great Britain Publisher: MPG Books.
22. Schumpeter, J. A. & Nichol, A. J. (1934). Review of Robinson’s economics of imperfect competition. The University of Chicago Press via JSTOR. Journal of Political Economy. 5(2), 249–259.
23. Shane, S. &Venkataramen, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Journal of Academy and Management, 25(1), 10-17.
24. Shapero, A. &Sokol, L. (1982), The Social dimensions of entrepreneurship. In C.A Kent, D. L. Sexton and K. H. Vesper (ed). Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship, 1(3), 40-60.
25. Stearns, T.M. & Hills, G. (1996). Entrepreneurship and new firm development: A definitional introduction. Journal of Business Research. 36(4), 42-70.
26. Wang, C.K. & Wong, P. (2014).Entrepreneurial interest of university students in Singapore. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Technovation, 2(4), 163-172
27. Wennekers, S. &Thurik, R. (1999). Linking entrepreneurship and economic growth. Journal of Small Business Economics, 13(1), 27-55.