Page 298 - Igor Ž. Žagar in Ana Mlekuž, ur. Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju: mednarodni vidiki vzgoje in izobraževanja. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 2020. Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes 38
P. 298
r aziskovanje v vzgoji in izobr aževanju: mednarodni vidki vzgoje in izobr aževanja
3. Studies show mixed results about whether such courses increase
students’ perception of feasibility; it is greater in Wales where en-
terprise and entrepreneurship education appears to be more em-
bedded in school and FE (Further education) than in England;
4. There is no evidence that students are more likely to take steps as
a result of courses towards the development stage of a new busi-
ness or using the skills gained to develop new business opportu-
nities in an existing small or large business;
5. There are, however, positive statistical relationships between vari-
ous enterprise and entrepreneurship education learning activities
in school and tertiary education and economic impacts includ-
ing starting a new business (strong evidence for entrepreneurship
course graduates); increasing employability and earnings; and
contributing to the growth of businesses (especially for graduates
entering small businesses). These suggest that enterprise and en-
trepreneurship education is a positive stimulus;
6. One study suggests a net positive impact on GVA (Gross val-
ue added) of enterprise and entrepreneurship education in HE
(Higher education).
Methodology
An examination sample size was 269 respondents. It included 174 students
employed in student companies, and 95 teachers hired as a menthors in stu-
dent`s companies founded by high schools of Serbia. The instrument used
for the study was questionnaire (``student`s organization questionnaire``)
conducted by the authors. The questionnaire is consisted of 12 items, based
on the practical implications and theoretical framework of student organi-
zations. Some questions were answered checking one or more answers, and
some questions were based on Likert scale (1 – not at all true, 2 – mostly not
true, 3 – not sure, 4 – mostly true, 5 – quite exactly), where respondends in-
dicated their level of agreement with the given statement.
The questionnaire was anonymous, delivered via Google Forms, as a
quick link, conducted in April and May 2017.
The structure of the whole sample with respect to sociodemographic
variables (gender, age, occupation, professional experience/type of school,
education) is presented as follows:
298
3. Studies show mixed results about whether such courses increase
students’ perception of feasibility; it is greater in Wales where en-
terprise and entrepreneurship education appears to be more em-
bedded in school and FE (Further education) than in England;
4. There is no evidence that students are more likely to take steps as
a result of courses towards the development stage of a new busi-
ness or using the skills gained to develop new business opportu-
nities in an existing small or large business;
5. There are, however, positive statistical relationships between vari-
ous enterprise and entrepreneurship education learning activities
in school and tertiary education and economic impacts includ-
ing starting a new business (strong evidence for entrepreneurship
course graduates); increasing employability and earnings; and
contributing to the growth of businesses (especially for graduates
entering small businesses). These suggest that enterprise and en-
trepreneurship education is a positive stimulus;
6. One study suggests a net positive impact on GVA (Gross val-
ue added) of enterprise and entrepreneurship education in HE
(Higher education).
Methodology
An examination sample size was 269 respondents. It included 174 students
employed in student companies, and 95 teachers hired as a menthors in stu-
dent`s companies founded by high schools of Serbia. The instrument used
for the study was questionnaire (``student`s organization questionnaire``)
conducted by the authors. The questionnaire is consisted of 12 items, based
on the practical implications and theoretical framework of student organi-
zations. Some questions were answered checking one or more answers, and
some questions were based on Likert scale (1 – not at all true, 2 – mostly not
true, 3 – not sure, 4 – mostly true, 5 – quite exactly), where respondends in-
dicated their level of agreement with the given statement.
The questionnaire was anonymous, delivered via Google Forms, as a
quick link, conducted in April and May 2017.
The structure of the whole sample with respect to sociodemographic
variables (gender, age, occupation, professional experience/type of school,
education) is presented as follows:
298
