Next Article in Journal
Socioeconomic and Cultural Impacts of Native Cotton Cultivation in the Amazonian Communities of Alto Urubamba, La Convencion-Cusco Province, Peru
Previous Article in Journal
People Category of UN SDGs 2030 and Sustainable Economic Growth in Asia and the Pacific Region
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 18
10.3390/su16187948
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A Step towards Sustainable Education: Does an Entrepreneurial Teacher Nurture Creativity?

by
Muhammet Saygın
1,*,
Serkan Say
2,
İsmail Yavuz Öztürk
3,
Bahadır Gülden
4 and
Kadir Kaplan
5
1
Department of Management and Organization, Silifke Vocational School, Mersin University, Mersin 33110, Türkiye
2
Department of Classroom Education, Faculty of Education, Mersin University, Mersin 33110, Türkiye
3
Department of Turkish Education, Faculty of Education, Mersin University, Mersin 33110, Türkiye
4
Department of Turkish Education, Faculty of Education, Bayburt University, Bayburt 69000, Türkiye
5
Department of Educational Measurement and Evaluation, Faculty of Education, Bayburt University, Bayburt 69000, Türkiye
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(18), 7948; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187948
Submission received: 13 August 2024 / Revised: 9 September 2024 / Accepted: 9 September 2024 / Published: 11 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the relationship between teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviors and their creativity-nurturing behaviors, with a particular emphasis on sustainability in education. While previous studies have typically examined entrepreneurship and creativity as separate concepts, often focusing on their individual dimensions, this study underscores the significance of integrating entrepreneurial and creative competencies to promote sustainable educational practices. By highlighting how teachers’ entrepreneurial and creative skills contribute to sustainable education, this study addresses the broader impact these competencies have on meeting the evolving needs and expectations of students, families, and society. This approach supports the development of a more resilient and adaptive education system that can thrive over time. The research involved 1396 classroom teachers from the Mersin province of Turkey. Analysis of the data revealed a strong positive correlation between teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviors and their creativity-nurturing behaviors, indicating that teachers who exhibit higher levels of entrepreneurial traits are more likely to engage in practices that foster creativity or that teachers who exhibit higher levels of creativity nurturing behaviors are more likely to engage in entrepreneurial practices among their students. Thus, the importance of the high-level relationship between entrepreneurial behaviors and creativity-enhancing behaviors in improving sustainability in education has been revealed. This study highlights the need to integrate entrepreneurial skills into teaching practices to support a sustainable educational framework.

1. Introduction

The levels of entrepreneurial behavior (EB) and creativity-nurturing behavior (CNB) among classroom teachers play significant roles in education. Entrepreneurial teaching involves implementing innovative ideas, boosting students’ self-confidence, and actively engaging them in preparing for the future. These behaviors typically manifest in areas such as classroom management, lesson planning, and student involvement. Entrepreneurship is regarded as an essential lifelong learning competency for everyone, not just teachers [1]. Throughout their development, entrepreneurial teachers face trials that inspire them to embrace future challenges and foster innovative ideas in school [2]. In other respects, rising expectations from parents and governments drive the need for school innovation, which in turn sparks teacher entrepreneurship and creativity [3]. In recent years, creative thinking and entrepreneurship have been extensively researched [4,5], and this may be a sign of the importance of creative thinking and entrepreneurship as key skills. CNB, on the other hand, involves developing students’ creative thinking skills, supporting their ability to view things from different perspectives, and encouraging them in problem-solving processes. This may involve diversifying classroom activities, employing student-centered teaching approaches, and providing students with various learning opportunities. The levels of EB and CNB among classroom teachers generally vary depending on factors such as the teacher’s personal characteristics, educational philosophy, classroom environment, and management style. Various tools and assessment methods can measure these behaviors. Teachers who excel in these areas can significantly enhance student learning outcomes and better equip them for future challenges.
Entrepreneurial teachers play significant roles in influencing students’ creativity (C) and entrepreneurial intentions (EIs). Research has demonstrated that teachers’ behaviors, particularly in creativity nurturing (CN), can have a substantial impact on students’ entrepreneurial mindset (EM) and intentions [6]. Teachers’ conceptions of C and their perceptions of creative students can affect how they support and cultivate entrepreneurial skills in the classroom [7]. Additionally, studies have found that teachers’ self-efficacy and C mediate the relationship between their views on C and their actual creative teaching behavior [8]. C is a crucial factor that shapes students’ EIs. Various studies have emphasized the positive influence of C on students’ EB and EIs [9,10,11]. Furthermore, students’ C has been shown to enhance their EIs, highlighting a strong connection between C and the inclination to engage in entrepreneurial activities [12]. The interplay between teachers’ behaviors, students’ C, and EI is intricate and multifaceted. Teachers who exhibit behaviors that nurture C can positively impact students’ creative accomplishments and EM [13]. Moreover, the perceived C supported within the university setting can, directly and indirectly, influence students’ EB through entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE) and individual entrepreneurial intent [14].
In conclusion, entrepreneurial teachers who demonstrate behaviors that nurture C can significantly influence students’ C and EIs. Through CN in the classroom, teachers can motivate and empower students to cultivate an EM and pursue entrepreneurial ventures. This study examines the relationship between teachers’ EB and CNB levels, highlighting the role of EB in enhancing C, particularly in education. EB, characterized by innovative and proactive approaches, is pivotal in preparing students for the dynamic challenges of the modern world. By encouraging teachers to adopt entrepreneurial teaching practices, educational institutions can nurture a culture of innovation and adaptability among students, equipping them with the skills needed to thrive in an ever-evolving landscape. Teachers’ EBs are related to their ability to act like entrepreneurs [15,16,17] while performing their duties rather than starting a new venture or business [18]. In this context, various classifications have been made regarding the elements of EB. For instance, Jong et al. [19] define entrepreneurial behavior as innovation, proactiveness, and risk-taking. Dess and Lumpkin [20] expand this to five dimensions: autonomy, innovation, proactiveness, competitiveness, and risk-taking. Innovation involves finding new opportunities and original solutions for organizational growth through creative processes. Autonomy is about taking independent actions to develop and complete a business vision. Proactiveness involves anticipating and seizing potential opportunities. Competitiveness is marked by a determined and aggressive approach to improving the organization or overcoming challenges. Risk-taking refers to making decisions and taking action amid uncertain outcomes. Although these classifications are presented differently in various studies, three elements that are found in other studies, albeit under different names, are commonly included: risk-taking, recognizing opportunities, and taking initiative [18,21,22]. When teachers embrace entrepreneurship, they transcend their roles as mere providers of instruction and assessment, regardless of the subject or grade level. They exemplify recognizing opportunities, initiative, and risk management, inspiring entrepreneurial behavior through their actions [23]. The Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan emphasizes that young people benefiting from entrepreneurial learning should develop business knowledge along with key skills and attitudes such as creativity, initiative, tenacity, teamwork, risk understanding, and a sense of responsibility. Strengthening entrepreneurial education in schools, vocational institutions, and universities will positively impact the entrepreneurial dynamism of our economies [24].
Furthermore, CN is essential in education as it cultivates students’ ability to think outside the box, solve complex problems, and explore new possibilities. Teachers who actively engage in CN create an environment where students feel empowered to express themselves, take risks, and pursue their unique ideas. This not only enhances students’ academic performance but also prepares them to become lifelong learners and innovative contributors to society. Teachers’ CNBs are seen as necessary for effective teaching [15,16,17], and involve encouraging students to be creative, present different ideas, and solve problems. CNB acts as a catalyst in the development of creative students and positively affects their academic success, inspiration, self-efficacy, and satisfaction [25]. C and cooperation are two essential tools of education systems for raising sustainable citizens of the future [26]. Chan and Yuen [27] revealed the components of this concept as “creativity beliefs” and “creative personality”. The scale developed by Sharma and Sharma [25] identifies CNB as consisting of the dimensions of critical thinking, curiosity, motivation, and abstraction. By integrating EB with CNB, educators can create dynamic learning environments that inspire curiosity, resilience, and forward-thinking among students. This holistic approach to education not only prepares students for future career opportunities but also fosters a mindset of continuous growth and innovation, ultimately contributing to the advancement of society as a whole.
Addressing entrepreneurship in the school context and focusing on teachers’ EB is a new phenomenon [28]. The same situation is seen in teachers’ CNB. Chan and Yuen [27] stated that future research should investigate the factors that influence behaviors that nurture creativity in more depth. Sternberg [29] also stated that despite existing research on the needs and benefits of teaching C, nurturing students’ creativity is rarely considered a learning goal. Considering the role of schools in meeting needs and expectations at different levels (student, family, and society), the importance of teachers’ entrepreneurial and creative competencies and behaviors becomes evident [30,31,32]. Conradty and Bogner [33] and Zemlyak et al. [34] have emphasized that teachers’ entrepreneurial and creative behaviors specifically enhance students’ creativity and sustainable business intentions, and generally support sustainable education. Entrepreneurial behaviors are expected to be closely linked with creativity-nurturing practices, as both aim to enhance innovative thinking and opportunity recognition. Educational approaches emphasizing brainstorming, problem-solving, and role-playing—integral to entrepreneurial programs—play a crucial role in developing students’ creative skills [35]. Such programs foster the development of individual creativity necessary for identifying and exploiting new business opportunities [36,37]. Although often perceived as an innate trait, this creativity can be significantly enhanced through pedagogical methods that promote creative thinking [38,39]. As research indicates, students participating in activities that develop creativity within entrepreneurial programs exhibit higher levels of entrepreneurial intentions [40], demonstrating that nurturing creativity is a component that can enhance entrepreneurial behavior and intentions.
Research specifically examining the link between entrepreneurial behavior (EB) and creativity nurturing behavior (CNB) has not been found in the databases reviewed, including Elton B. Stephens Company Open Dissertations, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT), Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), Taylor & Francis, Science Direct-Elsevier, Web of Science, and Wiley Online Library, despite using relevant keywords like “entrepreneurial behavior”, “creativity nurturing behavior”, and “creativity fostering behavior”. Nonetheless, this does not suggest that there is no academic interest in this area [41,42]. The literature indicates that exploring the connection between EB and creativity (C) has been limited [41,42,43,44]. Existing research primarily investigates various relationships involving EB, such as those with entrepreneurial attitude (EA), entrepreneurial intention (EI), entrepreneurial motivation (EM), entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ESE), entrepreneurial education (EE), entrepreneurial orientation (EO), entrepreneurial knowledge (EK), entrepreneurial education activity (EEA), and entrepreneurial alertness (EAL), either among these concepts or in relation to critical thinking (CT). Studies examining EB or CNB independently in fields such as business, management and accounting, social sciences, economics, econometrics and finance, psychology, decision sciences, environmental science, arts and humanities, agriculture and biological sciences, energy, computer science, and education exist. Studies addressing the EB or CNB levels of teachers separately in education are also present. The study closest to the target of this research is by Zampetakis [45], who examined the mediating role of family CN for children in the relationship between C and EI (to review all the studies in the literature along with their relationships, see Appendix A). In this study, the relationship between teachers’ EB and CNB levels, which have been revealed to be related to these concepts, which have environmental, personal, and behavioral aspects according to the literature, is examined using social cognitive theory [46,47]. In other words, we try to reveal whether the high EB levels of teachers, who therefore encourage their students’ entrepreneurial feelings, thoughts, and behaviors, are related to their ability to create an educational environment that also nourishes their creativity.
Due to the existing gap in the literature and the main purpose mentioned above, this study seeks to answer the following questions:
  • Is there a relationship between teachers’ entrepreneurial behavior (EB) levels and creativity-nurturing behavior (CNB) levels?
  • Is there a relationship between teachers’ “risk-taking”, one of the dimensions of EB, and CNB and its dimensions?
  • Is there a relationship between teachers’ “recognizing opportunities”, one of the dimensions of EB, and CNB and its dimensions?
  • Is there a relationship between teachers’ “taking initiative”, one of the dimensions of EB, and CNB and its dimensions?
  • Are teachers’ EBs related to CNB and its components?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Model of the Study

In this study, which aimed to examine the relationship between teachers’ EB and CNB levels, a relational screening model was used. Relational screening is a type of research that examines the relationship between variables without making any intervention in the variables [48]. It investigates the possibility of a relationship between two or more variables and, if so, at what level [49]. The relational screening model was used in this study because it aimed to examine the relationship between teachers’ EB and CNB levels.

2.2. Study Group

A convenience sampling method was employed in this study. The province of Mersin was selected because the majority of the researchers reside there and because the city has a cosmopolitan character resulting from its high rate of immigration from various parts of the country [50], and abroad [51]. The study group comprised 1396 classroom teachers working in Mersin province, Turkey. According to data from the Mersin Provincial Directorate of National Education, as of January 2023, there were 5886 classroom teachers working in the province [52]. During the data collection process, scales were physically distributed to 1800 primary school teachers, who were asked to complete them. Of these, 1421 teachers completed and returned the scales to the researchers. Data from 25 teachers were deemed unsuitable and excluded from the analysis. Participation in the study was voluntary. Demographic information about the participating teachers is presented in Table 1.
Among the participating teachers, 21% taught 1st grade, 26% taught 2nd grade, 31% taught 3rd grade, and 22% taught 4th grade. Additionally, 841 of the participating teachers were female, 555 were male, and 87% had ten or more years of teaching experience.

2.3. Data Collection Tools

2.3.1. Entrepreneurial Teacher Behavior Scale

The scale was developed by Van Dam, Schipper, and Runhaar [21] to measure teachers’ EB levels according to their own perceptions and was adapted to Turkish by Akkaya and Çetin [53]. The scale consists of 13 items and three dimensions. In the study [53], the reliability levels of the dimensions were found as 0.719 for the “recognizing opportunities” dimension, 0.775 for the “taking initiative” dimension, 0.876 for the “risk-taking” dimension, and 0.863 for the overall scale. It was also stated that the scale and its dimensions had a high level of reliability.

2.3.2. Creativity-Nurturing Behavior Scale

The scale was developed by Sharma and Sharma [25] to measure the CNB levels of teachers and was adapted to Turkish by Sadıç and Alcı [54]. The scale consists of 15 items and four dimensions. In their study, Sadıç and Alcı [54] found the reliability levels as 0.829 for the “critical thinking” dimension, 0.789 for the “curiosity” dimension, 0.700 for the “abstraction” dimension, 0.711 for the “motivation” dimension, and 0.931 for the overall scale. They also stated that the scale and its dimensions had a high level of reliability.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data in the study were analyzed using the SPSS v27.0 statistical software. To determine whether the data followed a normal distribution, a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was conducted. Since the groups demonstrated normal distribution, a Pearson correlation test was applied. The Pearson correlation is a widely used statistical method to assess the linear relationship between two variables. It was selected for this study because it accurately measures linear relationships, is simple to calculate, aligns well with the research design and objectives, is easy to interpret, and offers several advantages over alternative methods. The reliability levels of the scales collected within the scope of the study were recalculated for the study group. For the EB scale, the reliability coefficients were calculated as 0.737 for the “recognizing opportunities” dimension, 0.764 for the “taking initiative” dimension, 0.882 for the “risk-taking” dimension, and 0.874 for the overall scale. For the CNB scale, the reliability coefficients were calculated as 0.789 for the “critical thinking” dimension, 0.782 for the “curiosity” dimension, 0.769 for the “abstraction” dimension, 0.736 for the “motivation” dimension, and 0.851 for the overall scale. The determination and creation of dimensions were made based on the adapted scale. In other words, the dimensions were used in this scale, remaining faithful to the adapted scale. Reliability coefficients showed that this scale could be used.

3. Results

This section presents the findings regarding the main problem of the research and its sub-problems. First, whether the scores obtained from the scales were normally distributed was examined. Since the number of participants was 1396, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was performed, and it was seen that the scores obtained from both scales and their dimensions were normally distributed. Therefore, the Pearson correlation test was applied.
Table 2 shows that there is a positive and high level of correlation between teachers’ EB and CNB levels (r = 0.714, p < 0.05). Accordingly, it can be said that as teachers’ EB levels increase, their CNB levels also increase. The high level of relationship between EB and CNB suggests that teachers who exhibit higher levels of EB are more likely to engage in actions that nurture creativity in their students practically. This relationship emphasizes the potential benefits of fostering entrepreneurial traits in educators to enhance their ability to support and cultivate creative thinking in the classroom.
It is understood from Table 3 that a positive and high level of correlation is found between the levels of the “recognizing opportunities” dimension of EB and the “curiosity” dimension of CNB (rcuriosity = 0.874, p < 0.05), and a positive and high level of correlation is found between the levels of the “critical thinking” dimension (rcritical thinking = 0.764, p < 0.05). In addition, there is a positive and low level of correlation with the “motivation” dimension (rmotivation = 0.166, p < 0.05), and a positive and moderate level of correlation with CNB (rCNB = 0.527, p < 0.05). No correlation is found between the “abstraction” dimension (rabstraction = 0.041, p > 0.05). These findings emphasize the relational importance of recognizing opportunities to enhance specific aspects of CNB. Teachers who excel in identifying opportunities are likely to cultivate curiosity and critical thinking more effectively, which are essential for fostering a creative and engaging learning environment. It can be stated that the high level of correlation between curiosity and critical thinking emphasizes that opportunity recognition skills are linked to encouraging these characteristics among students. This insight suggests that professional development programs aimed at enhancing teachers’ ability to recognize and act on opportunities could also promote curiosity and critical thinking among students.
Table 4 shows that there is a positive and high level of significant correlation between the levels of the “taking initiative” dimension of EB and the levels of the “motivation” dimension of CNB (rmotivation = 0.833, p < 0.05). In addition, while there is a positive and low level of correlation between the levels of the “critical thinking” and “curiosity” dimensions (rcritical thinking = 0.113, rcuriosity = 0.109, p < 0.05), there is a positive and low level of correlation between the levels of CNB (rCNB = 0.328, p < 0.05). No relationship is found between the “abstraction” dimension (rabstraction = 0.060, p > 0.05).
As seen in Table 5, there is a high and positive correlation between the levels of the “risk-taking” dimension of EB and the “curiosity” dimension of CNB (rcuriosity = 0.801, p < 0.05), and a high level of correlation between the levels of the “critical thinking” dimension (rcritical thinking = 0.624, p < 0.05). In addition, there is a positive and low level of correlation between the levels of the “motivation” dimension (rmotivation = 0.143, p < 0.05), and a positive and moderate relationship between the levels of CNB (rCNB = 0.484, p < 0.05). No relationship is found between the levels of the “abstraction” dimension (rabstraction = 0.079, p > 0.05).
It is seen that there is a positive and moderate correlation between the EB levels of teachers and the “curiosity”, “motivation”, and “critical thinking” dimensions of CNB (rcuriosity = 0.562, rmotivation = 0.512, rcritical thinking = 0.458, p < 0.05), and a low level of correlation between the levels of the “abstraction” dimension (rabstraction = 0.125, p < 0.05) in Table 6.

4. Discussion

In this paper, where the relationship between teachers’ EB and CNB levels was examined together with their dimensions, a positive and high level of correlation was found between EB and CNB levels. This means that as EB is exhibited more by teachers, CNB is also exhibited more, and as EB is exhibited less, CNB is also exhibited less. The same situation can be observed as the EB level increases with the increase in the CNB level. The high level of relationship between EB and CNB suggests that teachers who exhibit higher levels of EB are more likely to engage in actions that nurture creativity in their students, practically. This relationship emphasizes the potential benefits of fostering entrepreneurial traits in educators to enhance their ability to support and cultivate creative thinking in the classroom. This finding aligns with previous research that reveals a significant relationship between EB and “critical thinking” [21,55,56,57], and between “innovation”, one of the dimensions of EB and C [58].
A high level of relationship has been found between the “recognizing opportunities” dimension of EB and the “curiosity” dimension of CNB. Curiosity is a critical element that plays a role in recognizing opportunities [59,60,61]. Creativity, defined by Bird [62], encompasses the ability to generate new ideas and solve problems with curiosity, making it one of the important dimensions of EB. Previous researchers Kumar and Shukla [63] and Shi et al. [6] have emphasized that C is crucial for entrepreneurial activities, noting that entrepreneurship itself is inherently a creative endeavor. Successful entrepreneurs are adept at identifying and selecting the right opportunities, as emphasized by Stevenson et al. [64]. Similarly, Onstenk [57] noted that recognizing opportunities in education is an important part of teachers’ entrepreneurship. By showcasing their curiosity, teachers can model EB for their students and encourage it in them. Therefore, curiosity is a significant dimension linked to EB that promotes proactive recognition of opportunities. This paper also found a positive and moderate relationship between curiosity and EB. In this study, it was determined that “recognizing opportunities” has a positive and high level of relationship with the “critical thinking” dimension of CNB. This situation is also consistent with the views of Van Dam et al. [21] who stated that encouraging students to think critically and creatively is one of the skills related to EB. The relationship between “motivation” and “abstraction” was positive but very low. In addition, it was determined that “recognizing opportunities”, which is an EB dimension aimed at creating value [65,66], has a positive and moderate relationship with CNB. Taken together, these findings emphasize the relational importance of recognizing opportunities to enhance specific aspects of CNB. Teachers who excel in recognizing opportunities are likely to cultivate curiosity and critical thinking more effectively, which are essential for fostering a creative and engaging learning environment. It can be stated that the high level of correlation between curiosity and critical thinking emphasizes that opportunity recognition skills are linked to encouraging these characteristics among students. This insight suggests that professional development programs aimed at enhancing teachers’ ability to recognize and act on opportunities could also promote curiosity and critical thinking among students.
There is a positive and high level of relationship between the “taking initiative” dimension of EB and the “motivation” dimension of CNB. It was determined that there is a positive but low level of relationship between the “critical thinking” and “curiosity” dimensions of CNB. As seen with the other dimensions of EB, no relationship was found between “taking initiative” and the “abstraction” dimension of CNB. Additionally, it was observed that there is a positive but low level of relationship between “taking initiative” and CNB. These results highlight the impact of initiative-taking on student motivation, suggesting that teachers who proactively participate in initiatives are thought to considerably increase students’ motivation levels. This finding suggests that encouraging teachers to take more initiative can lead to improvements in student motivation, an important aspect of an engaging and effective learning environment. The low level of correlations between critical thinking and curiosity suggests that although there is some relationship, it is relatively weak. This suggests that taking initiative alone may not be sufficient to significantly improve these dimensions of behavior that nurture creativity. Teachers may need additional strategies or support to effectively encourage critical thinking and curiosity. The positive and high level of relationship between the “taking initiative” dimension of EB and the “motivation” dimension of CNB brings to mind the findings in the literature that an EM affects EI [67,68,69,70], which have reached almost a consensus. This is significant since it has been established that EI predicts EB [71,72,73,74]. Additionally, according to Adeel et al. [75], “individuals with greater prior knowledge, entrepreneurial alertness, recognizing opportunities, entrepreneurial motivation, and entrepreneurial intention exhibit greater entrepreneurial behavior”. The identification of a positive and high level of relationship between the “motivation” dimension of EB and the “taking initiative” dimension of CNB suggests the hypothesis that the relationship between EI and EB is particularly established through the dimension of “taking initiative”. However, this needs to be validated through further research. In addition, considering the study of Kumar and Shukla [63], which revealed that C affects students’ EI as well as their ESE, it is thought that the relationship between EI and EB should be examined, especially in terms of “taking initiative”.
A positive and high level of relationship was found between the “risk-taking” dimension of EB and the “critical thinking” dimension of CNB. The significant relationship between “risk-taking” and EI identified in Sánchez’s [76] study is also seen in “critical thinking”, which is another cognitive dimension associated with CNB, indicating a connection between EB and cognitive processes. It was also been found that “risk-taking” is positively and highly related to another dimension of CNB, “curiosity”. However, the level of relationship with “critical thinking” and “curiosity” is not the same in the “motivation” dimension of CNB, being lower but still positive. No relationship was observed with “abstraction”. Additionally, a positive and moderate relationship between “risk-taking” and CNB has been determined.
Creativity is regarded as the ability to bring together, produce new ideas, and solve problems with curiosity [62]. In this regard, Zampetakis and Moustakis [45] stated that C is a vital aspect of individual cognitive processing, enabling the generation of new and useful ideas through the effective utilization of information and knowledge. Therefore, it is thought that curiosity in the process of students demonstrating and developing their C cannot be underestimated. In order to increase students’ curiosity levels, teachers can be expected to have a similar level of curiosity within the scope of CFB. At this point, there is a need for teachers with high levels of “risk-taking” within the scope of EB and consequently high levels of “curiosity” as part of CNB. Additionally, creative action stems from having enough time to develop ideas, unstructured play, taking risks without punishment, being alert to new associations, and interaction among peers or colleagues with similar thoughts [77]. Therefore, it can be expected that the presence of teachers who can strengthen the creative atmosphere in the classroom and encourage risk-taking and curiosity is a necessity. In teacher training and subsequent in-service training, there should be educational activities aimed at increasing their levels of “risk-taking” and “curiosity”. The lower level of relationship with motivation suggests that although there is some effect, it is relatively low. Teachers may need additional strategies to effectively increase student motivation beyond encouraging risk-taking attitudes. The lack of a significant relationship between abstraction and risk-taking suggests that other approaches may be needed to address and develop students’ abstract thinking abilities.
The moderate to high level of correlation of EB with curiosity and motivation dimensions of CNB suggest that cultivating entrepreneurial traits among teachers can significantly enhance these aspects among students. This suggests that promoting entrepreneurial behaviors in educators could be an effective strategy for encouraging students to be more curious and motivated. According to the moderate correlation of EB with the critical thinking dimension of CNB, it can be stated that EB can also contribute to the development of students’ critical thinking skills. This underscores the potential benefits of integrating entrepreneurial skills into teaching practices to support critical thinking. The low level of correlation of EB with abstraction indicates that there is a statistical relation, but it is not significant. This suggests that abstract thinking will not increase with increasing EB levels, and other strategies may be needed to develop abstract thinking. Overall, it is expected that entrepreneurial behaviors in teachers will be encouraged in order to increase curiosity, motivation, and critical thinking levels in students. However, additional measures may be needed to develop abstract thinking. (For a visual representation of what is explained in this section, please see Appendix B).

Limitations and Future Research

This study has the following limitations: First, the study, which examines the relationships between teachers’ EB and CNB levels, focused on teachers in Mersin province, Türkiye, limiting the diversity of the sample. Future research should consider teachers from different countries and cultures to enhance generalizability. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of this study makes it difficult to examine changes in teachers’ EB and CNB over time. Therefore, a longitudinal study is planned to investigate such changes. Furthermore, future research should explore the dimensions of EB-CNB and their relationships with concepts such as EI, EM, EA, EO, C, critical thinking (CT), and their respective dimensions. For example, the literature commonly finds that entrepreneurial motivation predicts EI. Given that EI also predicts EB, it is plausible that this relationship occurs through “taking initiative”; thus, the hypothesis that “taking initiative” plays a significant role in this relationship needs to be verified. Additionally, the role of C, which has been shown to affect EI, and the extent to which “taking initiative” influences this relationship should be examined. Finally, this research relies on self-reported measures of EB and CNB, which may be subject to bias. Future studies could incorporate multiple methods of data collection, such as observations or peer assessments, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between EB and CNB.

5. Conclusions

The relationship between teachers’ entrepreneurial behavior (EB) and creativity-nurturing behavior (CNB) levels was examined, revealing significant and high-level positive correlations that have not been documented in the existing literature.
When examining the dimensions, “risk-taking”, one of the dimensions of EB, shows a positive and high level of relationship with “curiosity”, a dimension of CNB, and a high level of relationship with “critical thinking”. This relationship is lower with “motivation”, another dimension of CNB. The relationships observed for “curiosity”, “critical thinking”, and “motivation” are similarly seen with “recognizing opportunities”, another dimension of EB. However, “risk-taking” differs from “recognizing opportunities” in its relationship with “abstraction” in CNB. The analyses revealed no relationship between “risk-taking” and “abstraction”, while a positive but low level of relationship was found between “recognizing opportunities” and “abstraction”. The relationships of the “risk-taking” and “taking initiative” dimensions of EB with CNB are similarly positive and at a medium level.
The “taking initiative” dimension of EB, unlike the other EB dimensions, has a positive and high level of relationship with the “motivation” dimension of CNB, and a low level of relationship with “curiosity” and “critical thinking”. Similar to “risk-taking”, it shows no relationship with “abstraction”. Unlike the other dimensions, “taking initiative” has a positive but low level of relationship with CNB. Several implications for educational policies and practices can be made in this direction. The strong correlations between EB dimensions and CNB suggest that incorporating entrepreneurial skills into teacher training and professional development could enhance creativity-nurturing behaviors. Programs that emphasize risk-taking, recognizing opportunities, and taking initiative could be particularly effective in fostering curiosity, critical thinking, and motivation in students. In addition, educational policies could be developed to encourage and support entrepreneurial behaviors among teachers. For instance, policies that provide resources and incentives for innovative teaching practices and risk-taking could lead to improvements in student engagement and creativity. Furthermore, integrating entrepreneurial elements into the curriculum could support the development of critical thinking and curiosity among students. Schools might consider adopting pedagogical approaches that promote these skills and provide opportunities for students to engage in creative problem-solving.
The focus of this study is on a specific population of teachers, which may not be representative of all educational settings. The sample size, while substantial, is confined to a particular geographic region and demographic, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to other contexts or countries. Future research could benefit from a more diverse sample to validate these findings across different educational environments. This study relies on self-reported measures of EB and CNB, which may be subject to bias. Future studies could incorporate multiple methods of data collection, such as observations or peer assessments, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between EB and CNB. By addressing these limitations and considering the implications for educational policies and practices, future research and interventions can more effectively leverage the benefits of entrepreneurial behavior in enhancing creativity-nurturing outcomes in education.
The Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan [24], which outlines the skills and attitudes expected of individuals in Europe for the 2020s, implicitly includes codes related to knowledge and creativity, taking initiative, perseverance, teamwork, an understanding of risk, a sense of responsibility, and recognizing opportunities through entrepreneurship education. These codes align with the dimensions examined in this study’s EB and CNB. Furthermore, critical thinking, curiosity, and motivation should be considered for their contributions to strengthening the relationship between EB and CNB. It is advisable to address all these dimensions in the framework of empowering teacher candidates and teachers to support both EB and CNB during teacher training and subsequent in-service training. This approach will help ensure the effective and sustainable implementation of the Action Plan and contribute to the development of entrepreneurial and creative individuals for the future.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S. and S.S.; methodology, S.S. and İ.Y.Ö.; software, S.S.; validation, M.S., İ.Y.Ö. and S.S.; formal analysis, B.G.; investigation, K.K.; resources, B.G.; data curation, K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, İ.Y.Ö.; visualization, S.S.; supervision, B.G.; project administration, K.K.; funding acquisition, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained online from all individual participants included in the study prior to their enrollment.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. The appendix of the manuscript, which provides visual representations of entrepreneurship and creativity, might be downloaded as publicly open access within the figshare repository at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.26594602.v1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 16 07948 g0a1
Figure A1. Studies with their relationships [22,47,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112].
Figure A1. Studies with their relationships [22,47,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112].
Sustainability 16 07948 g0a1

Appendix B

Sustainability 16 07948 g0a2
Figure A2. A visual representation of what is explained in Discussion.
Figure A2. A visual representation of what is explained in Discussion.
Sustainability 16 07948 g0a2

References

  1. Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. Available online: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reco/2006/962/oj/eng (accessed on 1 September 2024).
  2. Ho, C.S.M.; Bryant, D.A.; Jiafang, L. Nurturing Teachers’ Entrepreneurial Behavior in Schools: Roles and Responsibilities for School Principals. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 2024, 23, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ho, C.S.M.; Lu, J.; Bryant, D.A. Understanding Teacher Entrepreneurial Behavior in Schools: Conceptualization and Empirical Investigation. J. Educ. Chang. 2021, 22, 535–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Del Monte, A.; Pennacchio, L. Historical Roots of Regional Entrepreneurship: The Role of Knowledge and Creativity. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Machali, I.; Wibowo, A.; Murfi, A.; Narmaditya, B.S. From Teachers to Students Creativity? The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Education. Cogent Educ. 2021, 8, 1943151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shi, Y.; Yuan, T.; Bell, R.; Wang, J. Investigating the Relationship between Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Moderating Role of Creativity in the Theory of Planned Behavior. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aljughaiman, A.; Mowrer-Reynolds, E. Teachers’ Conceptions of Creativity and Creative Students. J. Creat. Behav. 2005, 39, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sutjonong, W.R.; Salim, R.M.A.; Safitri, S. Teachers’ Self-Efficacy as a Mediator of Their Perception and Behavior Regarding Creative Teaching for Elementary School Students. In Elementary School Forum (Mimbar Sekolah Dasar); ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 2022; Volume 9, pp. 161–173. [Google Scholar]
  9. Wu, J.; Pan, W.; Chen, S.; Deng, B. The Stimulation Mechanism of Students’ Entrepreneurial Intention in Entrepreneurship Course: A Trait Activation Theory Perspective. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1031435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chang, C.-P.; Chen, I.-J. Correlation between Pre-Service Teachers’ Information Technology Integration Attitude and Creative Teaching Behavior. Creat. Educ. 2015, 6, 1802. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nguyen, T.T.; Phan, H.T.T. Impact of Creativity on Student Entrepreneurial Intention. Int. J. Innov. IJI J. 2021, 9, 646–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wach, K.; Bilan, S. Creativity of Students in Favour of Their Entrepreneurial Intentions: Empirical Evidence from Poland. Creat. Stud. 2023, 16, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Du, Y.; Xie, L.; Zhong, J.A.; Zou, H.; Law, R.; Yan, X. Creativity Fostering Teacher Behavior on Student Creative Achievement: Mediation of Intrinsic Motivation and Moderation of Openness to Experience. Sch. Psychol. Int. 2019, 40, 525–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kajtazović, E.Č.; Glavaš, J.; Dervić, M.K. The Effects of Creativity Supported at the University on Entrepreneurial Behavior. Ekon. Vjesn. /Econviews-Rev. Contemp. Bus. Entrep. Econ. Issues 2022, 35, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cachia, R.; Ferrari, A. Creativity in Schools: A Survey of Teachers in Europe; Joint Research Centre (Seville Site): Sevilla, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Houston, W.R.; Haberman, M.; Sikula, J.P. Handbook of Research on Teacher Education; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunkin, M.J. The International Encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education; Elsevier Science & Technology Books: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1987; ISBN 978-0-08-030852-4. [Google Scholar]
  18. Neto, R.D.C.A.; Rodrigues, V.P.; Stewart, D.; Xiao, A.; Snyder, J. The Influence of Self-Efficacy on Entrepreneurial Behavior among K-12 Teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2018, 72, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. De Jong, J.P.J.; Parker, S.K.; Wennekers, S.; Wu, C.-H. Entrepreneurial Behavior in Organizations: Does Job Design Matter? Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 981–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dess, G.G.; Lumpkin, G.T. The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Stimulating Effective Corporate Entrepreneurship. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2005, 19, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Van Dam, K.; Schipper, M.; Runhaar, P. Developing a Competency-Based Framework for Teachers’ Entrepreneurial Behaviour. Teach. Teach. Educ. 2010, 26, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rauch, A.; Hulsink, W. Putting Entrepreneurship Education Where the Intention to Act Lies: An Investigation Into the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Behavior. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2015, 14, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Peltonen, K. How Can Teachers’ Entrepreneurial Competences Be Developed? A Collaborative Learning Perspective. Educ. Train. 2015, 57, 492–511. [Google Scholar]
  24. Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan. Available online: https://www.eesc.europa.eu/en/our-work/opinions-information-reports/opinions/entrepreneurship-2020-action-plan (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  25. Sharma, E.; Sharma, S. Creativity Nurturing Behaviour Scale for Teachers. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2018, 32, 1016–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Torrents Martín, C.; Balagué Serre, N.; Hristovski, R.; Almarcha, M.; Kelso, J.A. Metastable Coordination Dynamics of Collaborative Creativity in Educational Settings. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chan, S.; Yuen, M. Creativity Beliefs, Creative Personality and Creativity-Fostering Practices of Gifted Education Teachers and Regular Class Teachers in Hong Kong. Think. Ski. Creat. 2014, 14, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Ho, C.S.M. Conceptualizing Teachers’ Entrepreneurial Behavior: An Exploratory Review. Int. J. Lib. Arts Soc. Sci. 2018, 6, 14–28. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sternberg, R.J. Teaching for Creativity: The Sounds of Silence. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2015, 9, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Assunção Flores, M. Teaching and Developing as a Teacher in Contradictory Times. Teach. Teach. 2017, 23, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Borasi, R.; Finnigan, K. Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Behaviors That Can Help Prepare Successful Change-Agents in Education. New Educ. 2010, 6, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Harvey, S. Creative Synthesis: Exploring the Process of Extraordinary Group Creativity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2014, 39, 324–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Conradty, C.; Bogner, F.X. Education for Sustainable Development: How Seminar Design and Time Structure of Teacher Professional Development Affect Students’ Motivation and Creativity. Educ. Sci. 2022, 12, 296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zemlyak, S.; Naumenkov, A.; Khromenkova, G. Measuring the Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Motivations behind the Behavioral Intentions of Starting a Sustainable Business. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gundry, L.K.; Ofstein, L.F.; Kickul, J.R. Seeing around Corners: How Creativity Skills in Entrepreneurship Education Influence Innovation in Business. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2014, 12, 529–538. [Google Scholar]
  36. Baron, R.A. Opportunity Recognition as Pattern Recognition: How Entrepreneurs “Connect the Dots” to Identify New Business Opportunities. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2006, 20, 104–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shane, S.; Venkataraman, S. The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Osborn, A.F. Applied Imagination; Revised Edition; Scribner: New York, NY, USA, 1957. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ward, T.B. Cognition, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2004, 19, 173–188. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fallatah, M.I.; Ayed, T.L. “Entrepreneurizing” College Programs to Increase Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Mediation Framework. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ko, S.; Butler, J.E. Creativity: A Key Link to Entrepreneurial Behavior. Bus. Horiz. 2007, 50, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Shaheen, N.; Al-Haddad, S.; Marei, A.; Daoud, L. The Effect of Creativity on Entrepreneurial Behavior: The Moderating Role of Demographics. Inf. Sci. Lett. 2023, 12, 1365–1372. [Google Scholar]
  43. Danish, R.Q.; Asghar, J.; Ahmad, Z.; Ali, H.F. Factors Affecting “Entrepreneurial Culture”: The Mediating Role of Creativity. J. Innov. Entrep. 2019, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Uddin, M.; Hill, L.B. Creativity and Entrepreneurial Behavior. J. Intercult. Commun. Stud. (ICS) 2010, 19, 221–233. [Google Scholar]
  45. Zampetakis, L.A.; Moustakis, V. Linking Creativity with Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Structural Approach. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2006, 2, 413–428. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bandura, A. Model of Causality in Social Learning Theory. In Cognition and Psychotherapy; Mahoney, M.J., Freeman, A., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1985; pp. 81–99. ISBN 978-1-4684-7564-7. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yuan, C.-H.; Wang, D.; Mao, C.; Wu, F. An Empirical Comparison of Graduate Entrepreneurs and Graduate Employees Based on Graduate Entrepreneurship Education and Career Development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Johnson, R.B.; Christensen, L. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  49. Fraenkel, J.R.; Wallen, N.E.; Hyun, H.H. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education, 8th ed.; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  50. İç Göç İstatistikleri 2023. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Ic-Goc-Istatistikleri-2023-53676 (accessed on 2 September 2024).
  51. Uluslararası Göç İstatistikleri 2023. Available online: https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Uluslararasi-Goc-Istatistikleri-2023-53544 (accessed on 2 September 2024).
  52. Mersin Milli Eğitim Müdürlüğü 2023 Yılı Brifing Raporu. Available online: https://mersin.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2023_01/10150454_OCAK_brifng_kapaklY.pdf (accessed on 12 August 2024).
  53. Akkaya, R.; Çetin, M. Girişimci Öğretmen Davranışları Ölçeği: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması. Milli Eğitim Derg. 2022, 51, 1473–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sadiç, T.; Alcı, B. Öğretmenlerin Yaratıcılığı Besleme Davranışı Ölçeğinin Türkçeye Uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması. Int. J. Turk. Lit. Cult. Educ. 2021, 10, 1203–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Biessen, J.; Ebbens, F.; van Esch, W. Naar Een Flexibel Organisatieregime in ROC’s; Cinop: ‘s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  56. Gartner, W.B. What Are We Talking about When We Talk about Entrepreneurship? J. Bus. Ventur. 1990, 5, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Onstenk, J. Entrepreneurship and Vocational Education. Eur. Educ. Res. J. 2003, 2, 74–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Shahab, Y.; Chengang, Y.; Arbizu, A.D.; Haider, M.J. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Intention: Do Entrepreneurial Creativity and Education Matter? Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 259–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Heinemann, H.; Mussel, P.; Schäpers, P. Curious Enough to Start up? How Epistemic Curiosity and Entrepreneurial Alertness Influence Entrepreneurship Orientation and Intention. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1003866. [Google Scholar]
  60. Hsieh, C.; Pittaway, L. Curiosity and Curious Search in Entrepreneurship. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2024, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Soebagio, V.; Burhanudin; Adiningrum, T.S. The Effect of Curiosity On the Perception of Entrepreneurial Opportunity. Acad. Entrep. J. 2021, 27, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  62. Bird, B. Chapter 6 Toward a Theory of Entrepreneurial Competency. In Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth; Katz, J.A., Corbet, A.C., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2019; Volume 21, pp. 115–131. ISBN 978-1-78973-262-7. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kumar, R.; Shukla, S. Creativity, Proactive Personality and Entrepreneurial Intentions: Examining the Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2022, 23, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Stevenson, H.H.; Roberts, M.J.; Grousbeck, H.I. New Business Ventures and the Entrepreneur; Irwin: Martinsville, OH, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  65. Hitt, M.A.; Ireland, R.D.; Sirmon, D.G.; Trahms, C.A. Strategic Entrepreneurship: Creating Value for Individuals, Organizations, and Society. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2011, 25, 57–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ireland, R.D.; Hitt, M.A.; Sirmon, D.G. A Model of Strategic Entrepreneurship: The Construct and Its Dimensions. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 963–989. [Google Scholar]
  67. Barba-Sánchez, V.; Atienza-Sahuquillo, C. Entrepreneurial Intention among Engineering Students: The Role of Entrepreneurship Education. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2018, 24, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Durnalı, M. The Development and Validation of Technological Leadership Behavior Instrument for School Principal. J. Learn. Teach. Digit. Age 2022, 7, 210–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Purwana, D.; Suhud, U. Investigating the Effect of Motivation on Entrepreneurial Intention: Three Different Approaches. Probl. Perspect. Manag. 2018, 16, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tung, D.T.; Hung, N.T.; Phuong, N.T.C.; Loan, N.T.T.; Chong, S.-C. Enterprise Development from Students: The Case of Universities in Vietnam and the Philippines. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2020, 18, 100333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Calza, F.; Cannavale, C.; Nadali, I.Z. How Do Cultural Values Influence Entrepreneurial Behavior of Nations? A Behavioral Reasoning Approach. Int. Bus. Rev. 2020, 29, 101725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Cui, J.; Bell, R. Behavioural Entrepreneurial Mindset: How Entrepreneurial Education Activity Impacts Entrepreneurial Intention and Behaviour. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022, 20, 100639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gieure, C.; del Mar Benavides-Espinosa, M.; Roig-Dobón, S. The Entrepreneurial Process: The Link between Intentions and Behavior. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 112, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Meoli, A.; Fini, R.; Sobrero, M.; Wiklund, J. How Entrepreneurial Intentions Influence Entrepreneurial Career Choices: The Moderating Influence of Social Context. J. Bus. Ventur. 2020, 35, 105982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Adeel, S.; Daniel, A.D.; Botelho, A. The Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on the Determinants of Entrepreneurial Behaviour among Higher Education Students: A Multi-Group Analysis. J. Innov. Knowl. 2023, 8, 100324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sánchez, J.C. The Impact of an Entrepreneurship Education Program on Entrepreneurial Competencies and Intention. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2013, 51, 447–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Johnson, S. Where Good Ideas Come from: The Natural History of Innovation; Penguin: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  78. Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior: Frequently Asked Questions. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 2, 314–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Armitage, C.J.; Conner, M. Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Meta-analytic Review. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 40, 471–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Bae, T.J.; Qian, S.; Miao, C.; Fiet, J.O. The Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Meta–Analytic Review. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2014, 38, 217–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Burnette, J.L.; Pollack, J.M.; Forsyth, R.B.; Hoyt, C.L.; Babij, A.D.; Thomas, F.N.; Coy, A.E. A Growth Mindset Intervention: Enhancing Students’ Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Career Development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2020, 44, 878–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chia, C.-C.; Liang, C. Influence of Creativity and Social Capital on the Entrepreneurial Intention of Tourism Students. J. Entrep. Manag. Innov. 2016, 12, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Duong, C.D. Entrepreneurial Fear of Failure and the Attitude-Intention-Behavior Gap in Entrepreneurship: A Moderated Mediation Model. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2022, 20, 100707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Green, D.D.; Taylor III, G.; Ford, V. Cultivating the Entrepreneurial Mindset in Today’s Small Liberal Colleges & Universities. Glob. J. Entrep. (GJE) 2020, 4, 14–58. [Google Scholar]
  85. Jena, R.K. Measuring the Impact of Business Management Student’s Attitude towards Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intention: A Case Study. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 107, 106275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jiatong, W.; Murad, M.; Bajun, F.; Tufail, M.S.; Mirza, F.; Rafiq, M. Impact of Entrepreneurial Education, Mindset, and Creativity on Entrepreneurial Intention: Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 724440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jung, E.; Lee, Y. College Students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset: Educational Experiences Override Gender and Major. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Haddoud, M.Y.; Onjewu, A.-K.E.; Nowinski, W.; Alammari, K. Assessing the Role of Entrepreneurship Education in Regulating Emotions and Fostering Implementation Intention: Evidence from Nigerian Universities. Stud. High. Educ. 2022, 47, 450–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Handayati, P.; Wulandari, D.; Soetjipto, B.E.; Wibowo, A.; Narmaditya, B.S. Does Entrepreneurship Education Promote Vocational Students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset? Heliyon 2020, 6, e05426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Hu, R.; Wang, L.; Zhang, W.; Bin, P. Creativity, Proactive Personality, and Entrepreneurial Intention: The Role of Entrepreneurial Alertness. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Kassean, H.; Vanevenhoven, J.; Liguori, E.; Winkel, D.E. Entrepreneurship Education: A Need for Reflection, Real-World Experience and Action. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2015, 21, 690–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kubberød, E.; Pettersen, I.B. Exploring Situated Ambiguity in Students’ Entrepreneurial Learning. Educ. Train. 2017, 59, 265–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kuratko, D.F.; Fisher, G.; Audretsch, D.B. Unraveling the Entrepreneurial Mindset. Small Bus. Econ. 2021, 57, 1681–1691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Liñán, F.; Rodríguez-Cohard, J.C.; Rueda-Cantuche, J.M. Factors Affecting Entrepreneurial Intention Levels: A Role for Education. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2011, 7, 195–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Miranda, F.J.; Chamorro-Mera, A.; Rubio, S. Academic Entrepreneurship in Spanish Universities: An Analysis of the Determinants of Entrepreneurial Intention. Eur. Res. Manag. Bus. Econ. 2017, 23, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Murad, M.; Li, C.; Ashraf, S.F.; Arora, S. The Influence of Entrepreneurial Passion in the Relationship between Creativity and Entrepreneurial Intention. Int. J. Glob. Bus. Compet. 2021, 16, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Nowiński, W.; Haddoud, M.Y.; Wach, K.; Schaefer, R. Perceived Public Support and Entrepreneurship Attitudes: A Little Reciprocity Can Go a Long Way! J. Vocat. Behav. 2020, 121, 103474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ouni, S.; Boujelbene, Y. The Mediating Role of Big Five Traits and Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Behavior: Study of Tunisian University Graduate Employees. Eval. Program Plan. 2023, 100, 102325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Premand, P.; Brodmann, S.; Almeida, R.; Grun, R.; Barouni, M. Entrepreneurship Education and Entry into Self-Employment among University Graduates. World Dev. 2016, 77, 311–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ribeiro, M.; Fernandes, A. Impact of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on the Intention to Create a New Business: A Cross-Sectional Study in Portuguese Higher Education Students. In Proceedings of the INTED 2020 Proceedings, Valencia, Spain, 2–4 March 2020; IATED: Valencia, Spain, 2020; pp. 8418–8424. [Google Scholar]
  101. Rodriguez, S.; Lieber, H. Relationship between Entrepreneurship Education, Entrepreneurial Mindset, and Career Readiness in Secondary Students. J. Exp. Educ. 2020, 43, 277–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Saptono, A.; Wibowo, A.; Narmaditya, B.S.; Karyaningsih, R.P.D.; Yanto, H. Does Entrepreneurial Education Matter for Indonesian Students’ Entrepreneurial Preparation: The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Mindset and Knowledge. Cogent Educ. 2020, 7, 1836728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. San-Martín, P.; Fernández-Laviada, A.; Pérez, A.; Palazuelos, E. The Teacher of Entrepreneurship as a Role Model: Students’ and Teachers’ Perceptions. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Schmutzler, J.; Andonova, V.; Diaz-Serrano, L. How Context Shapes Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy as a Driver of Entrepreneurial Intentions: A Multilevel Approach. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019, 43, 880–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Sheeran, P. Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 12, 1–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shinnar, R.S.; Hsu, D.K.; Powell, B.C.; Zhou, H. Entrepreneurial Intentions and Start-Ups: Are Women or Men More Likely to Enact Their Intentions? Int. Small Bus. J. 2018, 36, 60–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Shirokova, G.; Osiyevskyy, O.; Bogatyreva, K. Exploring the Intention–Behavior Link in Student Entrepreneurship: Moderating Effects of Individual and Environmental Characteristics. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Şahin, F.; Karadağ, H.; Tuncer, B. Big Five Personality Traits, Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Entrepreneurial Intention: A Configurational Approach. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 1188–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Urban, B. Entrepreneurial Alertness, Self-Efficacy and Social Entrepreneurship Intentions. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2020, 27, 489–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wardana, L.W.; Narmaditya, B.S.; Wibowo, A.; Mahendra, A.M.; Wibowo, N.A.; Harwida, G.; Rohman, A.N. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education and Students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset: The Mediating Role of Attitude and Self-Efficacy. Heliyon 2020, 6, e04922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Wei, X.; Liu, X.; Sha, J. How Does the Entrepreneurship Education Influence the Students’ Innovation? Testing on the Multiple Mediation Model. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Cui, J.; Sun, J.; Bell, R. The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on the Entrepreneurial Mindset of College Students in China: The Mediating Role of Inspiration and the Role of Educational Attributes. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Demographic profile of the participating teachers.
Table 1. Demographic profile of the participating teachers.
Categoriesn%
1st Grade29321.0
2nd Grade36326.0
3rd Grade43331.0
4th Grade30722.0
Female84160.3
Male55539.7
10+ Years Experience121587.0
Less Than 10 Years Experience18113.0
Total1396100
Table 2. Correlation test results for teachers’ scores on scales.
Table 2. Correlation test results for teachers’ scores on scales.
CNB
EBCorrelation Coefficient0.714 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.000
N1396
** p < 0.01.
Table 3. Correlation test results between teachers’ “recognizing opportunities” dimension of EB and CNB scale and its dimensions.
Table 3. Correlation test results between teachers’ “recognizing opportunities” dimension of EB and CNB scale and its dimensions.
Critical Thinking CuriosityAbstractionMotivationCNB
Recognizing OpportunitiesCorrelation C.0.764 **0.847 **0.0410.166 **0.527 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.0000.4170.0010.000
N13961396139613961396
** p < 0.01.
Table 4. Correlation test results between teachers’ “taking initiative” dimension of EB and CNB scale and its dimensions.
Table 4. Correlation test results between teachers’ “taking initiative” dimension of EB and CNB scale and its dimensions.
Critical ThinkingCuriosityAbstractionMotivationCNB
Taking InitiativeCorrelation C.0.113 *0.109 *0.0600.833 **0.328 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0240.0300.2350.0000.000
N13961396139613961396
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Table 5. Correlation test results between teachers’ “risk-taking” dimension of EB and CNB scale and its dimensions.
Table 5. Correlation test results between teachers’ “risk-taking” dimension of EB and CNB scale and its dimensions.
Critical ThinkingCuriosityAbstractionMotivationCNB
Risk-TakingCorrelation C.0.624 **0.801 **0.0790.143 **0.484 **
Sig. (2-tailed)0.0000.0000.1170.0040.000
N13961396139613961396
** p < 0.01.
Table 6. Correlation test results between teachers’ EB scale and CNB scale dimensions.
Table 6. Correlation test results between teachers’ EB scale and CNB scale dimensions.
Critical Thinking CuriosityAbstractionMotivation
EBCorrelation C.0.458 **0.562 **0.125 *0.512 **
Sig. (1-tailed)0.0000.0000.0130.000
N1396139613961396
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saygın, M.; Say, S.; Öztürk, İ.Y.; Gülden, B.; Kaplan, K. A Step towards Sustainable Education: Does an Entrepreneurial Teacher Nurture Creativity? Sustainability 2024, 16, 7948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187948

AMA Style

Saygın M, Say S, Öztürk İY, Gülden B, Kaplan K. A Step towards Sustainable Education: Does an Entrepreneurial Teacher Nurture Creativity? Sustainability. 2024; 16(18):7948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187948

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saygın, Muhammet, Serkan Say, İsmail Yavuz Öztürk, Bahadır Gülden, and Kadir Kaplan. 2024. "A Step towards Sustainable Education: Does an Entrepreneurial Teacher Nurture Creativity?" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 7948. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16187948

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop