Next Article in Journal
Gastronomic Identity Factors in the Function of Sustainable Gastronomy: A Case Study of Tourist Destinations in the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina
Previous Article in Journal
Factors Affecting Teachers’ Behavior of Innovative Teaching with Technology: Structural Equation Modelling
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unlocking Sustainable Economic Development in Saudi Arabia through the Coffee Industry
 
 
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 19
10.3390/su16198502
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 Moderated Mediation Model of Entrepreneurship Education, Competence, and Environmental Dynamics on Entrepreneurial Performance

by
Feng Liu
1,2,
Guimei Yang
2 and
Putthiwat Singhdong
2,*
1
School of Management, Sichuan University of Science and Engineering, Zigong 643000, China
2
Faculty of Business Administration, Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi, Pathum Thani 12110, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(19), 8502; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198502
Submission received: 20 July 2024 / Revised: 18 September 2024 / Accepted: 26 September 2024 / Published: 29 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management under Sustainable Development)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study explores the relationship between entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial competence, and entrepreneurial performance, focusing on the moderating role of environmental dynamics under conditions of high and low environmental dynamics. Using SPSS 21.0 and Smart PLS 4.0 software, this quantitative research analyzed survey data from 424 college students in China who have started their own businesses. The results indicate that entrepreneurship education has a significant positive impact on entrepreneurial performance. Furthermore, environmental dynamics moderate the indirect effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial competence, with the indirect effect being stronger when environmental dynamics are high. The study also underscores the need for the sustainable development of entrepreneurship education, ensuring that educational programs evolve continuously to meet the changing demands of entrepreneurial environments. The findings highlight the importance of entrepreneurship education in fostering entrepreneurial competence and enhancing entrepreneurial performance. However, due to the cross-sectional design and self-reported nature of the data, the ability to draw causal inferences is limited. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs and objective performance measures to further investigate these relationships.

1. Introduction

Currently, nations worldwide are facing significant economic challenges. Entrepreneurship, as a key driver of national economic development, plays a crucial role in promoting economic growth, structural transformation, and job creation [1,2]. At the same time, entrepreneurship serves as a cornerstone for many nations, driving economic growth through various channels such as job creation, increased innovation and productivity, knowledge dissemination, fostering a competitive market, and offering a wider range of products and services [3].
In China, innovation and entrepreneurship have been elevated to the level of national strategy. According to the “2023 Global Startup Ecosystem Index Report” published by Startup Blink, China ranks 12th globally in entrepreneurial ecosystems and third in the Asia-Pacific region, behind only Singapore and Australia [4]. The “China Youth Entrepreneurship Development Report (2021)” reveals that young Chinese entrepreneurs generally have high educational qualifications and operate with relatively small startup capital. Over 85% of these entrepreneurs hold an associate degree or higher, with their ventures primarily focused on agriculture, forestry, animal husbandry, fisheries, wholesale and retail, education, culture, and accommodation and catering services [5].
Data from the “Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020 China Report” indicate that Chinese entrepreneurs perceive abundant opportunities, and society holds entrepreneurship in high regard [6]. Despite these opportunities, entrepreneurship still carries significant uncertainties, requiring entrepreneurs to bear considerable risks and costs. In China, the failure rate of startups exceeds 90%, with around 70% of small and medium-sized enterprises failing to survive beyond five years [7]. Despite ongoing improvements in the entrepreneurial environment, enhancing the success rate of young entrepreneurs has become a pressing issue that requires urgent attention.
Entrepreneurial education has increasingly become a focal point for researchers, who widely regard it as a key pathway for cultivating students’ entrepreneurial intentions and enhancing their capabilities, particularly within higher education [8,9]. In China, entrepreneurial education has been implemented for years, with over 82% of universities requiring students to take courses in innovation and entrepreneurship and offering related electives [10]. However, the development of entrepreneurial education remains relatively slow and is still in its early stages [11]. Research shows that students are eager for universities to provide more entrepreneurial guidance, financial support, policy assistance, skills training, and access to facilities [12].
Recently, entrepreneurship education has gained significant scholarly attention, predominantly focusing on entrepreneurial intentions as a pivotal variable [8]. Juan José and his team suggest broadening the scope of entrepreneurship research models to explore new directions and variables beyond mere entrepreneurial intentions [13]. Recognized as a means to bolster entrepreneurial competencies—including resource integration and coordination—entrepreneurship education is essential for enhancing firm performance and achieving sustainable competitive advantages [14,15]. As per Hashim et al., entrepreneurial competencies are individual traits like specific skills, self-image, social roles, knowledge, motives, and traits, crucial for the growth of SMEs [16]. Entrepreneurs drive firm development by launching innovative products or services and revamping existing production or service methods. Thus, “entrepreneurial competencies” are key strategic elements vital for a firm’s success and securing a “sustainable competitive advantage” [17,18].
Current research linking entrepreneurship education with entrepreneurial performance identifies several gaps: primarily, the models often lack robust theoretical foundations, in-depth analysis, and comprehensive discussion of interrelated variables. Secondly, distinguishing the impacts at different levels (individual, team, or organizational) remains challenging, leading to ambiguities and logical inconsistencies. Thirdly, the influence mechanisms on entrepreneurial performance frequently neglect boundary effects.
Based on the above research background, to ensure the survival and development of startups, this study proposes to investigate how entrepreneurial education can enhance the entrepreneurial performance of university students. This article introduces a conceptual framework (shown in Figure 1) asserting that entrepreneurship education crucially connects to entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial competencies. It also explores the moderating effect of environmental dynamics.
This research aims to elucidate two primary objectives: (1) Examine the relationships among entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial capability, and entrepreneurial performance. (2) Investigate the impacts of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial competence with the varying conditions of environmental dynamics.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Foundation

The theoretical basis of this research is Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB). It is a psychological theory that links personal beliefs with behavior [19]. which is utilized to predict and elucidate behaviors in specific contexts through three core elements: attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control [20].
Attitude encapsulates an individual’s positive or negative evaluation of engaging in a particular activity and is intertwined with personal perceptions of entrepreneurship. Attitudes are formed by beliefs, emotions, and behavioral tendencies that interact and collectively influence actions [21]. Viewing entrepreneurship as a vehicle to achieve personal goals can cultivate a positive attitude and elevate entrepreneurial intentions. This study proposes that entrepreneurship education might positively alter students’ perceptions, leading to an enhanced view of entrepreneurial outcomes.
Subjective norms comprise the social expectations and pressures associated with performing specific behaviors, such as entrepreneurship. They predict not only behaviors that individuals feel are under their full control but also those that may pose challenges during execution [20]. This research explores how educational programs can impact students’ perceptions of these norms, especially regarding perceived social support for their entrepreneurial actions.
Perceived behavioral control reflects an individual’s assessment of the ease or difficulty of performing a behavior, which includes mastery over resources and opportunities. It is a robust predictor of behavioral capability and plays a crucial role in the actual performance of the behavior [22].
This research posits that entrepreneurship education enhances students’ self-efficacy by equipping them with essential skills, thereby increasing their capability to engage in entrepreneurial endeavors.

2.2. Entrepreneurship Education

Entrepreneurship education holds a prominent global position, significantly influencing the development of future entrepreneurial leaders. It has attracted considerable attention from experts and scholars worldwide [23,24]. Its primary goal is to cultivate and enhance students’ entrepreneurial skills and attitudes [25]. Most research on entrepreneurship education focuses on higher education institutions, where curricula, experiences, and methodologies equip entrepreneurs with essential knowledge, motivation, and skills [26,27,28,29]. Entrepreneurship education employs various approaches; incorporating courses and educational methods grounded in diverse innovative technologies can significantly enhance student engagement [30]. Bell suggests that combining theoretical and practical education can enhance its effectiveness, with teaching ability, instructional quality, and learning outcomes being critical [31]. Providing students with entrepreneurial mentors can significantly enhance their capabilities and self-efficacy [32]. Both required and elective entrepreneurship courses positively impact the development of entrepreneurial skills, especially practice-oriented ones [33,34]. Entrepreneurial competitions, a form of practical teaching, foster team collaboration and social skills among students while also igniting entrepreneurial enthusiasm [35,36].
With the advancement of research, the scope of entrepreneurship education has expanded to encompass individual learning attitudes and environmental factors. At the individual level, a positive attitude toward entrepreneurship education is more likely to result in entrepreneurial behavior [37]. At the environmental level, school support is the most critical factor influencing entrepreneurial performance [38], and it also positively moderates the relationship between green entrepreneurial intentions and green entrepreneurial behavior [39].
Based on the earlier discussions of entrepreneurship education and recent research, this study uses four factors—personal involvement (PI), personal satisfaction (PS), learning effect (LE), and school support (SS)—to assess the impact of entrepreneurship education.

2.3. Entrepreneurial Competence

Scholars have approached the study of entrepreneurial competence from various perspectives, considering different angles and viewpoints. From a management perspective, entrepreneurial competence encompasses essential management and leadership skills required for entrepreneurship. These skills include strategic planning, market analysis, team management, and decision making. From this angle, entrepreneurial competence is seen as a necessary condition for entrepreneurs to establish and manage their businesses [40]. Conversely, some experts explore this topic from a psychological perspective, emphasizing the inherent personal attributes and psychological traits of entrepreneurs, such as self-efficacy, stress tolerance, individual psychological cognition, and psychological resilience [41,42]. Other scholars have examined the social attributes of entrepreneurial competence, highlighting entrepreneurs’ proficiency in networking and resource utilization [43].
Over the years, entrepreneurial competence has evolved to encompass the talents and knowledge reserves essential for entrepreneurs to start and run businesses [44]. This includes not only domain-specific knowledge but also proficiency in leadership, communication, decision making, and innovative thinking related to management [45].
Entrepreneurial competence plays a critical role in decision making and the subsequent success of business operations, significantly influencing the overall trajectory of nascent businesses [46]. Entrepreneurial competence contributes in multiple ways, enabling entrepreneurs to seize opportunities proactively, enhance risk awareness, and conduct objective evaluations of opportunities, thereby significantly boosting the financial and strategic strength of their enterprises [47]. Additionally, entrepreneurial competence not only enhances opportunity identification but also facilitates resource acquisition, which is crucial for developing and realizing opportunities [48].
In this paper, it is proposed that entrepreneurial competence for university students primarily includes four aspects: opportunity identification competence (OIC), managerial competence (MC), financial readiness competence (FRC), and team building competence (TBC).

2.4. Entrepreneurial Performance

Entrepreneurial performance is widely regarded as a critical indicator of business success, as it encompasses various aspects that reflect the overall effectiveness and impact of business activities. These aspects include financial metrics, such as revenue growth and profitability, as well as non-financial metrics, such as market share expansion and customer satisfaction. Together, these factors provide a comprehensive assessment of how well an entrepreneur or a business is performing in achieving its objectives, maintaining competitiveness, and contributing to economic development [49]. However, errors persist in the academic exploration of this variable, particularly in its definition and conceptualization. Notably, some scholars have inadequately differentiated between organizational and individual levels of entrepreneurial performance, with most studies centering on the organizational level and categorizing performance into three main types.
The first category comprises financial and non-financial indicators. For instance, Mikalef (2020) investigated how big data analytics and supply chain management influence both financial and non-financial outcomes [50]. The second category consists of subjective and objective indicators. Menesha, and Mwanaumo (2023) examined subjective and objective factors in human capital and supply chain management [51]. The third category covers survival and growth performance. Zhao et al. (2011) explored how entrepreneurial orientation and strategic flexibility impact survival and growth performance in Chinese SMEs [52].
In contrast, a smaller body of research has focused on individual entrepreneurial performance. For example, Yang (2023) and colleagues investigated how dual entrepreneurial motivations affect the personal performance of migrant workers, highlighting the importance of entrepreneurial learning and competence as mediating factors between motivation and performance [53]. Wang et al. (2020) studied the connections between entrepreneurial passion, learning, and the performance of migrant workers, using metrics such as increased personal income, improved family life, and the realization of personal goals to measure performance [54]. Li Jiahui (2022) found that subjective performance mainly reflects the entrepreneur’s satisfaction with their achievements in various areas of their ventures [55].
Clearly defining the concept of performance in research is crucial, as it guides the focus of the study. In this context, entrepreneurial performance is defined to ensure consistency in research variables, encompassing the vital role individual entrepreneurs play in sustaining and growing their enterprises. Specifically, it represents the degree to which entrepreneurs successfully accomplish specific tasks or achieve set goals throughout the entrepreneurial process. This performance is evidenced by outcomes such as increased personal income, improved quality of life, and higher social status. For this study, entrepreneurial performance is analyzed from the individual entrepreneur’s perspective, emphasizing two primary dimensions: financial performance (FP) and growth performance (GP) [56].

2.5. Environmental Dynamics

Environment dynamics is a term resonating deeply within the fields of entrepreneurship and management research, emerging as a critical concept worth exploring in depth. Its importance echoes across various strata of business strategy, performance metrics, and innovation fields. In entrepreneurship, environment dynamics play a pivotal role. It encompasses the capriciousness, unpredictability, and rate of change, which ripple through the business environment [57,58]. Essentially, the more complex the environment, the more enigmatic its nature becomes. Its labyrinthine patterns are difficult to predict, providing little comfort to those seeking fixed routes. The academic consensus is clear: the environment remains in a perpetual state of flux. This recognition underscores the complexity and unpredictability that characterize environment dynamics.
Research in the field of environment dynamics demonstrates its use as an independent variable, a control variable, and a moderating factor, as evidenced by Li’s pioneering work [59]. Despite this, the predominant focus in studies exploring the relationship between environment dynamics and firm performance is on its role as a moderating variable.
According to Wang (2019), environment dynamics can be defined as “the changes in technology, customer preferences, and fluctuations in market demand and raw material availability” [60]. This definition reflects the pace of changes in consumer inclinations, demand patterns, competitive paradigms, and numerous forces permeating the market landscape [61]. It underscores the necessity of a comprehensive understanding that encompasses fundamental elements as well as burgeoning opportunity horizons. Environment dynamics dimensions are divided into the internal environment (IE) of the firm and the external environment (ETE).

2.6. Hypothetical Development

Unger et al. (2011) suggest that entrepreneurship education not only imparts critical skills for identifying business opportunities but also aids in crafting viable business models to serve profitable markets, thus achieving performance objectives [62].
Moreover, entrepreneurship education imparts entrepreneurial knowledge, fosters an entrepreneurial mindset, enhances skill sets, and boosts confidence, collectively enhancing entrepreneurial performance [63]. It allows students to encounter and address potential challenges and risks in entrepreneurial processes early on, promoting innovative problem-solving and resilience [64]. In practice, students gain access to valuable networking opportunities with seasoned entrepreneurs and senior managers, facilitating early exposure to innovative, high-quality information [65], thus mitigating the “liabilities of newness” and fostering entrepreneurial success.
Entrepreneurial competence contributes in multiple ways, enabling entrepreneurs to seize opportunities proactively, enhance risk awareness, and conduct objective evaluations of opportunities, thereby significantly boosting the financial and strategic strength of their enterprises [47]. Additionally, entrepreneurial competence not only enhances opportunity identification but also facilitates resource acquisition, which is crucial for developing and realizing opportunities [48].
Thus, this paper posits Hypotheses H1 and H2:
Hypothesis H1.
Entrepreneurship education has a positive impact on entrepreneurial performance.
Hypothesis H2.
Entrepreneurial competence mediates the relationship between entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial performance.
Entrepreneurial competence is vital for companies to navigate complex, dynamic environments, ultimately leading to improved performance [66]. In fast-changing market conditions, entrepreneurs need to show greater adaptability, innovation, and transformative abilities. Environmental dynamics act as a strong force, compelling entrepreneurs to proactively create new business models, products, or services. In highly dynamic environments, the ability to innovate and transform becomes crucial, requiring entrepreneurs to constantly adjust strategies to respond to market fluctuations [67]. Companies with strong resource coordination show a stronger positive correlation between entrepreneurial orientation and performance [58]. Additionally, in highly dynamic environments, an entrepreneur’s management style can be deeply influenced. This influence, in turn, enhances performance by strengthening entrepreneurial competence and promoting a more comprehensive decision-making approach [68].
Thus, this paper posits Hypothesis H3:
Hypothesis H3.
Environmental dynamics positively moderate the indirect effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial competence.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Measurement Instrument and Questionnaire Design

This study investigates the impact of entrepreneurship education (EE) as an independent variable and entrepreneurial competence (EC) as a mediating variable on the entrepreneurial performance (EP) of university students in China. It also examines the moderating role of environmental dynamics (ED). The survey was conducted among various types of Chinese university students engaged in entrepreneurship.
To ensure the integrity of the survey process and the quality of the questionnaire, the authors referenced established scales and engaged seven experts from pertinent fields for a review of the questionnaire. Based on the feedback received, preliminary modifications were made. Prior to the main survey, a pilot study was conducted with 141 entrepreneurial university students to re-evaluate the reliability of the questionnaire.
Entrepreneurship education (EE) is measured across four dimensions: personal involvement (PI), personal satisfaction (PS), learning effect (LE), and school support (SS). The measurement scale is adapted from Ning Depeng et al. [69,70]. Entrepreneurial competence (EC) encompasses four dimensions: opportunity identification competence (OIC), managerial competence (MC), financial readiness competence (FRC), and team building competence (TBC). The measurement scale is adapted from Ugochukwu Chinonso Okolie et al. [71,72,73]. Entrepreneurial performance (EP) is assessed using two dimensions: financial performance (FP) and growth performance (GP). The measurement scale is based on the research by Wang Zhuandi et al. [54,55]. Environmental dynamics (ED) includes two dimensions: intrapreneurial environment (IE) and external environment (ETE). The measurement scale is adapted from Chen Yangyang et al. [60,72,74].
The questionnaire uses a five-point Likert scale, where 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 represent “strongly disagree”, “don’t agree”, “disagree”, “agree” and “strongly agree” respectively.

3.2. Ssampling and Data Collection

In the formal study, the authors employed a two-stage sampling method based on the categorization of higher education institutions (HEIs) by the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China as of December 2022, detailed in Table 1. The survey was conducted from December 2023 to January 2024 through online platforms (WeChat, Questionnaire Star), distributing a total of 600 questionnaires; 420 valid questionnaires were retrieved, yielding a response rate of 70.67%.
In this survey, all respondents’ personal information will be kept confidential, and their sensitive data will not be shared with third parties. Research data will be analyzed collectively (rather than individually) and honestly.

3.3. Statistical Techniques

This paper employs Smart PLS 4.0 software for analysis to assess the validity and reliability of the measurement model and to test the significance of the relationships proposed in the hypotheses. The researchers employed Smart PLS 4.0 to conduct partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) analysis due to its suitability for exploratory theory development, applicability to non-normally distributed data, and superior statistical power in parameter estimation, thereby maximizing explained variance [75].

3.4. Demographic Characteristics

Based on the collected data, the survey revealed that 74.29% of the respondents were male. The largest age group, comprising 52.12% of the total respondents, was between 23 and 27 years old. The majority of respondents held undergraduate degrees, accounting for 69.81% of the sample. Regarding the types of educational institutions, respondents were affiliated with various HEIs: 24.53% from institutions under Central Ministries and Agencies, 28.30% from academic HEIs, 25.24% from professional HEIs, and 21.93% from vocational HEIs. The most common professional category among respondents was management, representing 45.28%, followed by finance at 29.95%, education at 10.61%, engineering at 8.37%, and other fields at 5.42%.
In terms of enterprise size, 76.89% of the respondents were from businesses with fewer than 10 employees, 17.22% were from businesses with 11–20 employees, 2.83% were from businesses with 21–50 employees, and 3.07% were from businesses with more than 50 employees. As for industry sectors, the trade and services sector was predominant, accounting for 64.86% of the sample, followed by traditional manufacturing at 20.28%, finance at 4.01%, high-tech at 3.54%, and construction/real estate at 3.30%.

4. Data Analysis

4.1. Construct Reliability and Validity Analysis

Prior to hypothesis testing, the scales’ reliability and validity were assessed. Initially, to ensure reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for each construct. According to DeVellis, a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient above 0.7 signifies good reliability [76]. Subsequently, the model’s convergent and discriminant validity were assessed using Smart PLS 4.0 software. Convergent validity criteria demand that standardized factor loadings exceed 0.5, AVE surpass 0.5, and CR exceed 0.6 [77,78]. Discriminant validity was assessed using the Fornell–Larcker criterion, which requires the square root of each construct’s AVE to exceed its correlations with any other construct in the model [79]. Table 2 presents the results of the reliability and convergent validity tests for the scales, and discriminant validity results are detailed in Table 3.
From Table 2, it can be observed that the Cronbach’s alpha values range from 0.841 to 0.904, all greater than 0.70; the scale demonstrates strong reliability. The factor loading values range from 0.806 to 0.883, all exceeding the threshold of 0.70; the composite reliability (CR) values for all measured variables range from 0.903 to 0.929, all above 0.70; additionally, the average variance extracted (AVE) values range from 0.703 to 0.769, all above the recommended threshold of 0.50; the scale demonstrates good convergent validity.
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations of all constructs. In the table, the bold numbers on the diagonal represent the square root of the average variance extracted (AVE) for each variable, while the numbers below the diagonal represent the correlation coefficients between each pair of variables. A comparison reveals that the square root of the AVE for each variable is greater than the values in the corresponding rows and columns of the correlation matrix, indicating satisfactory discriminant validity.
Therefore, the model in this study demonstrates reliability, and the designed measurement scales exhibit high reliability and stability. The system’s measurement items meet the measurement requirements and are of high quality. All reliability indicators meet the established standards for assessment.

4.2. Testing of Direct Effects, Conditional Indirect Effects and Conditional Direct

Before hypothesis testing, it is essential to first eliminate multicollinearity. Multicollinearity is typically assessed using the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF). According to Hair et al. (2011), a VIF value between 0.2 and 5 indicates that there is no issue of multicollinearity among the indicators [80]. In this study, the VIF values ranged from 1.413 to 1.915, suggesting that multicollinearity does not affect the path coefficients in the structural model used in this research.
Secondly, a hierarchical regression analysis of the relationship between entrepreneurship education (EE) and entrepreneurial performance (EP) was conducted using Smart PLS 4.0 software. The analysis yielded a β value of 0.633, a standard error (SE) of 0.042, a T value of 14.990, and a p value of 0.000. These results indicate a significant positive correlation between EE and EP, with the total effect of EE on EP being 0.633.
To examine the mediation effects at various levels of environmental dynamics (ED), a process model was established in Smart PLS 4.0 software. We utilized the bootstrapping technique with 5000 iterations as recommended by Hayes to ensure robust estimates [81]. The model results are shown in Figure 2. The results for the direct and indirect effects are presented in Table 4, while the results for the moderated mediation effects can be found in Table 5.
Table 4 demonstrates that the path from entrepreneurship education (EE) to entrepreneurial performance (EP) is significant (β = 0.364, p < 0.001), thereby validating Hypothesis H1. Additionally, the table reveals that entrepreneurial competence (EC) significantly mediates the relationship between EE and EP (β = 0.245, p < 0.001), with no values straddling zero between the upper and lower confidence intervals. Hypothesis H2 is supported. Since Hypothesis H1 is confirmed, EC partially mediates the effect of EE on EP.
Results from Table 5 indicate that environmental dynamics (ED) significantly moderate the mediated effect of entrepreneurship education (EE) on entrepreneurial performance (EP) through entrepreneurial competence (EC). The index of moderated mediation was significant (0.175 ***) indicated that ED helped change the indirect effect, i.e., the path EE → EC → EP. We found that the effects of EE on EP through EC increase as values of ED increase indicated that to get high EP, we should be ready to face high changes in the market synonymous with choosing a lower ED level if not ready.
The additional result is that ED changed the effects of EC on EP. A visual representation of the moderating effects and a simple slope analysis were conducted, as depicted in Figure 3. The figure illustrates that under high environmental dynamics (ED), entrepreneurial competence (EC) significantly and positively impacts entrepreneurial performance (EP); under high ED, the EC exerts the highest significant positive impact on EP. This suggests that the positive influence of EC on EP is more pronounced under high ED, indicating heightened readiness of entrepreneurs must be practiced under high ED for high outcomes of EP.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

5.1. Explanation of the Effect of Inserting Mediators and Moderators

Entrepreneurship education (EE) significantly affects entrepreneurial performance (EP), with a total effect of 0.633. This effect size is considerably greater than the high effect threshold of 0.50 [82], indicating the presence of latent variables mediating the impact of EE on EP.
When the mediator (entrepreneurial competence) and moderator (environmental dynamics) are introduced, the direct effect of the independent variable (entrepreneurship education) on the dependent variable (entrepreneurial performance) decreases from 0.633 to 0.364 while remaining significant. This reduction demonstrates the value of incorporating these additional variables into the EE → EP model. However, as suggested by Chin (1998), a direct effect that remains above 0.20 indicates that EE is still a strong predictor of EP, or it may suggest the existence of other mediators that warrant further investigation [83].
Within the estimated framework, all path coefficients exhibit high values and statistical significance. This suggests that the causal relationships between the variables are well aligned with the theoretical foundation. Consequently, we can confidently proceed to explore the conditional path chains, supported by robust empirical evidence. The following is a focused discussion of the hypotheses.

5.2. Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Performance

This study empirically investigates how entrepreneurship education impacts entrepreneurial performance, focusing specifically on college students engaged in entrepreneurship. Unlike other studies, this research expects the positive influence of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial performance among university students. Entrepreneurship education not only imparts entrepreneurial knowledge and skills but also boosts the confidence of budding entrepreneurs and enhances their entrepreneurial intentions. During the process of engaging in entrepreneurship education, students’ entrepreneurial passion is ignited, ultimately improving their performance [20,84].
Moreover, mentorship from experienced entrepreneurs and a robust alumni network play a critical role in the success of student entrepreneurs [85]. The availability of resources such as incubators, laboratories, and other facilities significantly promotes entrepreneurial activities among students. These resources provide technical support and business consultancy, aiding students in turning their ideas into reality [86]. Additionally, participation in entrepreneurship education offers opportunities to connect with successful entrepreneurs, expanding their entrepreneurial resources. Activities such as entrepreneurship competitions, case studies, and practical entrepreneurial experiences further enhance their capabilities [65,87,88].

5.3. The Mediating Role of Entrepreneurial Competence

The research findings reveal that entrepreneurship education can positively influence college students’ entrepreneurial performance through the mediating role of entrepreneurial competence. This indicates that the higher the quality of entrepreneurship education in higher education institutions, the stronger the students’ entrepreneurial competence and, consequently, the better their entrepreneurial performance. Firstly, entrepreneurial competence is not innate; its development and enhancement are dependent on learning [18]. Through entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurs can acquire essential knowledge and theories in areas such as management, marketing, and finance, which can enhance their managerial competence and introduce new perspectives and approaches to the market environment, thereby fostering innovative thinking [89].
Practical experiences such as simulation training, participation in competitions, and internships can enrich students’ entrepreneurial experience, facilitating the conversion of entrepreneurial knowledge into skills [90]. Strong innovative competence enables entrepreneurs to quickly identify market opportunities, establish their market presence, and ultimately improve entrepreneurial performance. Moreover, participating in entrepreneurship education can increase entrepreneurs’ experience and expand their networks, particularly through interactions with entrepreneurs, professional managers, and technical experts during lectures and competitions. These interactions enhance their resource integration, business negotiation, and teamwork skills, helping to compensate for deficiencies in market knowledge and technical skills, thus reducing entrepreneurial risks and improving performance [91]. Additionally, such education may provide opportunities to secure funding, laying a solid foundation for gaining competitive advantages and positively impacting entrepreneurial performance [92].

5.4. The Moderating Role of Environmental Dynamics on the Indirect Effect

This study confirms the moderating role of environmental dynamics in the indirect effects of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial competence, with the findings showing more pronounced effects in highly dynamic environments. This understanding is crucial for grasping how entrepreneurship education functions under varying environmental conditions.
In highly dynamic environments, where markets have rapid changes and competition is intense, entrepreneurs must adapt quickly and modify their business strategies to address swiftly evolving market demands and technological innovations [93]. This research indicates that entrepreneurship education equips entrepreneurs with stronger competencies in such uncertain settings, particularly in opportunity identification [94] and leadership [95,96]. These enhanced competencies foster internal cohesion and external competitiveness, leading to improved entrepreneurial performance [97,98].
Secondly, high ED demand that entrepreneurs possess robust adaptability and innovation capabilities. In this context, entrepreneurship education is particularly critical, as it not only provides essential theoretical knowledge but also enhances entrepreneurial competencies to cope with both current and future entrepreneurial challenges [99]. Research indicates that in high ED, the competencies gained through education are more readily transformed into actual performance improvements. This is likely because entrepreneurs can more flexibly adjust and apply the learned skills and knowledge in the face of frequent market changes.
Moreover, the varying effects of environmental dynamics on moderating impacts suggest that while entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial competencies still positively influence entrepreneurial performance in low-dynamic environments, the strength of this influence is relatively weaker. This may be due to the lower external pressures and more defined market opportunities in relatively stable market conditions, which mean entrepreneurs do not need to adjust strategies frequently or rely heavily on rapid response capabilities.
Ultimately, understanding the level of environmental dynamics is essential for entrepreneurs to tailor their educational focus and strategic approach. In high ED scenarios, flexibility, rapid decision making, and innovation are key, while in low ED scenarios, stability, consistency, and gradual development take precedence. This nuanced approach ensures that entrepreneurs can effectively align their competencies with the specific demands of their operating environment, maximizing their chances of success.
Finally, this study demonstrates that environmental dynamics moderate the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial performance through entrepreneurial competence. In a dynamic environment, entrepreneurial competence enables entrepreneurs to effectively utilize their skills [95,96]. Effective strategic decision making and adaptability to environmental changes enhance the performance of startups. Strong competence allows for swift strategic adjustments, improving resource integration and opportunity identification. Environmental changes influence entrepreneurial leadership and innovation [74,100], encouraging startups to innovate and respond to market demands. This co-evolution accelerates the performance improvement of startups, promoting both internal cohesion and external competitiveness [97,98].
A review of the literature indicates that empirical studies on moderating factors in the field of entrepreneurship education are relatively scarce. This study shows that in a dynamic environment, entrepreneurs need to manage not only various internal relationships within their enterprises but also effectively handle external information through their own competence to achieve higher entrepreneurial performance. In other words, entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial competence play a more critical role in dynamic environments. This finding helps to further understand how to reform entrepreneurship education and apply entrepreneurial competence under different environmental conditions.

6. Managerial Implications

From the university’s perspective, several key strategies can be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education: (1) Design engaging courses and activities: universities should develop highly interactive courses and activities, such as entrepreneurship competitions, simulated business projects, and interdisciplinary team collaborations, to actively engage students. These initiatives are aimed at fostering active student participation. (2) Promote independent learning and practical experience: universities should encourage students to pursue self-directed learning and hands-on practice. Strengthening collaborations with relevant businesses, educational institutions, investors, and government entities can create broader entrepreneurial platforms for students. These partnerships can provide more entrepreneurial practice opportunities, enabling students to engage with real-world business environments and enhance their practical skills. (3) Establish regular feedback mechanisms: universities should implement regular feedback systems by conducting periodic surveys to assess students’ learning experiences and satisfaction. By integrating this feedback with market and technological changes, universities can continuously refine their teaching content and methods, ensuring timely adjustments to course offerings. In highly dynamic environments, course content should particularly focus on cultivating students’ adaptability, innovative thinking, and risk management skills. Universities can enhance students’ understanding and response to market changes by introducing real-time market analysis tools and simulating entrepreneurial scenarios. (4) Provide comprehensive resource support: as environmental conditions change, universities should regularly evaluate and adjust the resources and support they offer. This includes providing ample entrepreneurial resources, such as mentorship, workspace, and legal consulting services. Universities must ensure that these resources are adaptable to evolving market demands, helping students more effectively utilize them in dynamic environments to increase their chances of entrepreneurial success. This comprehensive support aids students in transforming the knowledge gained from entrepreneurship education into tangible entrepreneurial outcomes and in addressing specific challenges encountered during the entrepreneurial process.
For entrepreneurs, enhancing performance primarily involves building competencies through education. (1) Entrepreneurs should actively participate in entrepreneurship education, particularly in highly dynamic environments, to learn advanced management methods and tools. Continuous learning and practice enable entrepreneurs to better navigate market changes, optimize business operations, and improve overall performance. (2) In environments characterized by high dynamics, team flexibility and adaptability are crucial. Entrepreneurs should focus on learning how to build and lead efficient teams during their educational journey, leveraging team diversity and innovation to respond promptly to external environmental changes. (3) Entrepreneurs need to enhance their financing and capital management competencies through education, especially in environments with high uncertainty, to ensure that their businesses have sufficient funds to address unforeseen challenges. Learning how to effectively utilize various financing channels is essential for maintaining financial stability and achieving sustainable growth. (4) In dynamic environments, market opportunities are often more volatile and fleeting. Entrepreneurs should continuously improve their opportunity recognition competencies through education, swiftly identifying and seizing new market opportunities and converting them into tangible business outcomes.
The government should take a proactive role in supporting entrepreneurs by providing or funding entrepreneurial management training programs, which can help them acquire more efficient management techniques in dynamic environments. Additionally, establishing entrepreneurial exchange platforms and organizing team-building activities can foster collaboration among entrepreneurs from different fields, thereby enhancing their team collaboration competencies. To further support entrepreneurs, the government can facilitate easier access to funding through the creation of entrepreneurial funds and the provision of tax incentives, which will improve their funding preparedness in uncertain environments. Moreover, by offering market information and trend analysis services, the government can assist entrepreneurs in better identifying new market opportunities and guide them through policies to seize these opportunities, ensuring the sustainable growth of their businesses.

7. Limitations

This paper has several limitations. First, the data were collected over a short period and are static, lacking a dynamic perspective. Education is a long-term process, and dynamic research is essential to capture its full impact. Second, the study did not account for individual differences by including control variables or considering other influencing factors such as personality traits, gender, and self-efficacy. Third, the research sample did not consider regional differences, which could be further explored in future studies. Fourth, the potential existence of other mediating variables warrants further investigation.

Author Contributions

Methodology, F.L., G.Y. and P.S.; Software, F.L.; Formal analysis, F.L.; Investigation, F.L. and G.Y.; Writing—original draft, F.L.; Writing—review & editing, F.L. and G.Y.; Supervision, P.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

For Human research projects in Behavioral Science, Social Science, and Human Science, approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee is not required. a research project in which a set of questionnaires, interviews, or observations is not conducted on or affect physical bodies, mentalities, cells, cellular components, genetic materials, specimens, tissues, secretions, health, or behavior, which the individual cannot be directly or indirectly identified.

Informed Consent Statement

In this study, the questionnaire was used to collect information. All individuals gave appropriate verbal informed consent before data collection, but the need for informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee of the Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (RMUTT).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hathaway, I.; Litan, R.E. Declining business dynamism in the United States: A look at states and metros. Brook. Inst. 2014, 2, 2. [Google Scholar]
  2. Busenitz, L.W.; West Iii, G.P.; Shepherd, D.; Nelson, T.; Chandler, G.N.; Zacharakis, A. Entrepreneurship research in emergence: Past trends and future directions. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 285–308. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vatavu, S.; Dogaru, M.; Moldovan, N.-C.; Lobont, O.-R. The impact of entrepreneurship on economic development through government policies and citizens’ attitudes. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 2022, 35, 1604–1617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Monitor, G.E. Entrepreneurship in China—GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor; GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ren, Z.; Bai, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Pei, H.; Wang, X.; Wu, B.; Wang, S.; Huang, L.; Qu, H.; et al. China Youth Entrepreneurship Development Report (2021). China Youth Study 2022, 2, 85–100. [Google Scholar]
  6. Gao, J. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2019/2020 China Report; GEM Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wei, W.; Duan, J. How do entrepreneurial activities at different levels promote business growth: A review and research agenda. Chin. Manag. Stud. 2024, 18, 755–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nabi, G.; Liñán, F.; Fayolle, A.; Krueger, N.; Walmsley, A. The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2017, 16, 277–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Neck, H.M.; Corbett, A.C. The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrep. Educ. Pedagog. 2018, 1, 8–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lee, R.M.; Yuan, Y. Innovation education in China: Preparing attitudes, approaches, and intellectual environments for life in the automation economy. In Higher Education in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 93–119. [Google Scholar]
  11. Singer, S.; Herrington, M.; Menipaz, E. Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2017/18 Global Report; Global Entrepreneurship Research Association: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  12. Qu, R.; Zhao, Y.; Niu, T. Research on the current situation of college students’ entrepreneurship and promotion strategies. Trade Fair Econ. 2024, 5, 134–137. [Google Scholar]
  13. Nájera-Sánchez, J.-J.; Pérez-Pérez, C.; González-Torres, T. Exploring the knowledge structure of entrepreneurship education and entrepreneurial intention. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2023, 19, 563–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chryssochoidis, G.; Dousios, D.; Tzokas, N. Small firm adaptive capability, competitive strategy, and performance outcomes: Competing mediation vs. moderation perspectives. Strateg. Chang. 2016, 25, 441–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chinomona, R. Business owner’s expertise, employee skills training and business performance: A small business perspective. J. Appl. Bus. Res. 2013, 29, 1883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hashim, N.A.B.; Raza, S.; Minai, M.S. Relationship between entrepreneurial competencies and small firm performance: Are dynamic capabilities the missing link? Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Mohsin, A.M.B.A.; Halim, H.A.; Farhana, N. Assessing the role of entrepreneurial competencies on innovation performance: A partial least squares (PLS) approach. J. Bus. Inq. 2017, 16, 88–101. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rasmussen, E.; Mosey, S.; Wright, M. The evolution of entrepreneurial competencies: A longitudinal study of university spin-off venture emergence. J. Manag. Stud. 2011, 48, 1314–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Amankwah, J.; Sesen, H. On the Relation between Green Entrepreneurship Intention and Behavior. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ajzen, I. EBOOK: Attitudes, Personality and Behaviour; McGraw-Hill Education: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ajzen, I. Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2002, 32, 665–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gillani, S.M.; Senin, A.B.A.; Bode, J.; Gillani, S.M. Bibliometric Analysis of Digital Entrepreneurial Education and Student Intention; Reviewed and Analyzed by VOSViewer from Google Scholar. Int. J. Interact. Mob. Technol. (IJIM) 2022, 16, 48–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, L.; Ifenthaler, D.; Yau, J.Y.-K. Online and blended entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of applied educational technologies. Entrep. Educ. 2021, 4, 191–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nunfam, V.F.; Asitik, A.J.; Afrifa-Yamoah, E. Personality, Entrepreneurship Education and Entrepreneurial Intention Among Ghanaian Students. Entrep. Educ. Pedagog. 2022, 5, 65–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dissanayake, H.; Iddagoda, A.; Popescu, C. Entrepreneurial Education at Universities: A Bibliometric Analysis. Adm. Sci 2022, 12, 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gianiodis, P.T.; Meek, W.R. Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: A stakeholder perspective. J. Technol. Transf. 2020, 45, 1167–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Badawi, S.; Reyad, S.; Khamis, R.; Hamdan, A.; Alsartawi, A.M. Business education and entrepreneurial skills: Evidence from Arab universities. J. Educ. Bus. 2019, 94, 314–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fernández-Pérez, V.; Montes-Merino, A.; Rodríguez-Ariza, L.; Galicia, P.E.A. Emotional competencies and cognitive antecedents in shaping student’s entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of entrepreneurship education. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2019, 15, 281–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wang, X.-H.; You, X.; Wang, H.-P.; Wang, B.; Lai, W.-Y.; Su, N. The Effect of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Intention: Mediation of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Moderating Model of Psychological Capital. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bell, R.; Bell, H. Applying educational theory to develop a framework to support the delivery of experiential entrepreneurship education. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2020, 27, 987–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gimmon, E. Mentoring as a practical training in higher education of entrepreneurship. Educ. + Train. 2014, 56, 814–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hahn, D.; Minola, T.; Bosio, G.; Cassia, L. The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students’ entrepreneurial skills: A family embeddedness perspective. Small Bus. Econ. 2020, 55, 257–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sirelkhatim, F.; Gangi, Y. Entrepreneurship education: A systematic literature review of curricula contents and teaching methods. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 1052034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pardo-Garcia, C.; Barac, M. Promoting Employability in Higher Education: A Case Study on Boosting Entrepreneurship Skills. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gupta, P.; Chauhan, S.; Paul, J.; Jaiswal, M.P. Social entrepreneurship research: A review and future research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 113, 209–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ning, D.; He, T.; Deng, J.; Zeng, X. Research on the Influence Mechanism of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Behavior—A Large-Sample Empirical Examination Mediated by Entrepreneurial Ability and Entrepreneurial Willingness. J. East China Norm. Univ. (Educ. Sci. Ed.) 2023, 41, 93–105. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shi, Q. Research on the Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Performance of College Students in Shanxi Province. Master’s Thesis, Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, Taiyuan, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  39. Li, C.; Murad, M.; Ashraf, S.F. The Influence of Women’s Green Entrepreneurial Intention on Green Entrepreneurial Behavior through University and Social Support. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Klofsten, M.; Urbano, D.; Heaton, S. Managing intrapreneurial capabilities: An overview. Technovation 2021, 99, 102177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Welter, C.; Scrimpshire, A. The missing capital: The case for psychological capital in entrepreneurship research. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2021, 16, e00267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xiang, X.; Wang, J.; Long, Z.; Huang, Y. Improving the Entrepreneurial Competence of College Social Entrepreneurs: Digital Government Building, Entrepreneurship Education, and Entrepreneurial Cognition. Sustainability 2023, 15, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zahra, S.A.; Wright, M. Understanding the Social Role of Entrepreneurship. J. Manag. Stud. 2015, 53, 610–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. 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]
  45. Alijani, S. Entrepreneurial Capability and Leadership. In Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Carayannis, E.G., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 603–614. [Google Scholar]
  46. Pieterse, A.N.; Van Knippenberg, D.; van Ginkel, W.P. Diversity in goal orientation, team reflexivity, and team performance. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 2011, 114, 153–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, M.; Tansuhaj, P.; McCullough, J. International entrepreneurial capability: The measurement and a comparison between born global firms and traditional exporters in China. J. Int. Entrep. 2009, 7, 292–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Withers, M.C.; Drnevich, P.L.; Marino, L. Doing more with less: The disordinal implications of firm age for leveraging capabilities for innovation activity. J. Small Bus. Manag. 2011, 49, 515–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alene, E.T. Determinants that influence the performance of women entrepreneurs in micro and small enterprises in Ethiopia. J. Innov. Entrep. 2020, 9, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Mikalef, P.; Krogstie, J.; Pappas, I.O.; Pavlou, P. Exploring the relationship between big data analytics capability and competitive performance: The mediating roles of dynamic and operational capabilities. Inf. Manag. 2020, 57, 103169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Menesha, A.H.; Mwanaumo, E.T. Supply Chain Management Practice and Competitive Advantage: Systematic Literature Review. Logist. Oper. Manag. Res. 2023, 2, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Lee, S.H.; Bo Chen, L. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Organizational Learning, and Performance: Evidence from China. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 293–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Yang, S.; Li, M.; Yue, L.; Yu, L.; Li, W. From Farmers’ Entrepreneurial Motivation to Performance—The Chain Mediating Effect of Entrepreneurial Learning and Entrepreneurial Ability. Sustainability 2023, 15, 726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, Z.; Ma, H.; Guo, P. Entrepreneurial passion, entrepreneurial learning and migrant workers’ entrepreneurial performance. South. Econ. 2020, 5, 111–126. [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, J. Research on the Influence Factors of Digital Entrepreneurial Psychological Capital and the Role Mechanism on Entrepreneurial Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  56. Su, L.L.; Pang, Y.L.; Kong, R. A study on the impact of farmers’ entrepreneurial ability on entrepreneurial acquisition—Based on the mediating effect of entrepreneurial performance and the moderating effect of entrepreneurial motivation. Agric. Technol. Econ. 2016, 12, 63–75. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dess, G.G.; Beard, D.W. Dimensions of organizational task environments. In Administrative Science Quarterly; Sage Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1984; pp. 52–73. [Google Scholar]
  58. Choi, S.B.; Lee, W.R.; Kang, S.-W. Entrepreneurial Orientation, Resource Orchestration Capability, Environmental Dynamics and Firm Performance: A Test of Three-Way Interaction. Sustainability 2020, 12, 5415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Li, H.; Atuahene-Gima, K. Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Acad. Manag. J. 2001, 44, 1123–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, B. A Study of the Mechanism of Entrepreneurial Learning on the Performance of New Ventures. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  61. Achrol, R.S.; Stern, L.W. Environmental determinants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing channels. J. Mark. Res. 1988, 25, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Unger, J.M.; Rauch, A.; Frese, M.; Rosenbusch, N. Human capital and entrepreneurial success: A meta-analytical review. J. Bus. Ventur. 2011, 26, 341–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. 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]
  64. Ren, S.; Jiang, Y.; Jia, Q. Research on the influence mechanism of entrepreneurship education on college students’ entrepreneurial performance-mediated by proactive personality. Mod. Univ. Educ. 2017, 3, 106–111. [Google Scholar]
  65. Rasmussen, E.A.; Sørheim, R. Action-based entrepreneurship education. Technovation 2006, 26, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Peteraf, M.A.; Barney, J.B. Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2003, 24, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. McMullen, J.S.; Dimov, D. Time and the entrepreneurial journey: The problems and promise of studying entrepreneurship as a process. J. Manag. Stud. 2013, 50, 1481–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Garg, V.K.; Walters, B.A.; Priem, R.L. Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 725–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ning, D. Research on the Influence Mechanism of Entrepreneurial Education on Entrepreneurial Behavior. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  70. Phan, P.H.; Wong, P.K.; Wang, C.K. Antecedents to entrepreneurship among university students in Singapore: Beliefs, attitudes and background. J. Enterprising Cult. 2002, 10, 151–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Okolie, U.C.; Igwe, P.A.; Ayoola, A.A.; Nwosu, H.E.; Kanu, C.; Mong, I.K. Entrepreneurial competencies of undergraduate students: The case of universities in Nigeria. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2021, 19, 100452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, Y. A Study of the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Failure Experience, Entrepreneurial Ability, and Subsequent Entrepreneurial Venture Growth Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, Jilin University, Changchun, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  73. Yang, R. A Study on the Continuous Entrepreneurial Ability of Chinese University Students. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing, China, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  74. Jansen, J.J.P.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.J.; Volberda, H.W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1661–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hair, J.F.; Risher, J.J.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2019, 31, 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. DeVellis, R.F.; Blalock, S.J.; Holt, K.; Renner, B.R.; Blanchard, L.W.; Klotz, M.L. Arthritis patients’ reactions to unavoidable social comparisons. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1991, 17, 392–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hair, J.F. Multivariate Data Analysis; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  78. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics; Sage Publications: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2011, 19, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hayes, A.F. Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Commun. Monogr. 2018, 85, 4–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  83. Chin, W.W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1998; pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  84. Yin, F. Entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial intention, and college students’ entrepreneurial performance: An empirical analysis based on a survey of 235 questionnaires. Technol. Econ. Manag. Res. 2019, 2, 41–46. [Google Scholar]
  85. Bergmann, H.; Geissler, M.; Hundt, C.; Grave, B.S. The Climate for Entrepreneurship at Higher Education Institutions. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 700–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chang, J.; Rieple, A. Assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills development in live projects. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2013, 20, 225–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Thompson, J.A. Proactive personality and job performance: A social capital perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Falck, O.; Heblich, S.; Luedemann, E. Identity and entrepreneurship: Do school peers shape entrepreneurial intentions? Small Bus. Econ. 2012, 39, 39–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Yang, D.; Zhao, X.; Chen, W. Theoretical analysis and empirical testing of the structure of entrepreneurial capability among college students. Sci. Technol. Prog. Policy 2014, 20, 151–155. [Google Scholar]
  90. Zeng, E.L. Entrepreneurship education strategies for enhancing college students’ entrepreneurial skills based on a two-dimensional structure. Res. Educ. Dev. 2013, 11, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  91. O’Connor, A. A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 546–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X. Operationalization of corporate entrepreneurship and its performance implications in China: An empirical study. J. Chin. Entrep. 2008, 1, 8–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Cingöz, A.; Akdoğan, A.A. Strategic Flexibility, Environmental Dynamism, and Innovation Performance: An Empirical Study. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2013, 99, 582–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. He, L.; Zheng, L.J.; Sharma, P.; Leung, T.Y. Entrepreneurship education and established business activities: An international perspective. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 2024, 22, 100922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Abdalla, S.S.A.; Nakagawa, K. Entrepreneurial Leadership, Supply Chain Innovation, and Adaptability: A Cross-national Investigation. Oper. Res. Forum 2022, 3, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Rubin, R.S.; Munz, D.C.; Bommer, W.H. Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Acad. Manag. J. 2005, 48, 845–858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Vera, D.; Crossan, M. Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 222–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Lv, Y.; Chen, Y.; Sha, Y.; Wang, J.; An, L.; Chen, T.; Huang, X.; Huang, Y.; Huang, L. How entrepreneurship education at universities influences entrepreneurial intention: Mediating effect based on entrepreneurial competence. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 655868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Omri, W. Innovative behavior and venture performance of SMEs: The moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2015, 18, 195–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 08502 g001
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Sustainability 16 08502 g001
Sustainability 16 08502 g002
Figure 2. Moderated mediation through Smart PLS 4.0. Note: *** denotes p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Moderated mediation through Smart PLS 4.0. Note: *** denotes p < 0.001.
Sustainability 16 08502 g002
Sustainability 16 08502 g003
Figure 3. Interaction slope (ED × EC) through Smart PLS 4.0.
Figure 3. Interaction slope (ED × EC) through Smart PLS 4.0.
Sustainability 16 08502 g003
Table 1. Number of samples collected from each type of college or university.
Table 1. Number of samples collected from each type of college or university.
TypeQuantitiesStage 1: Drawing of Specific Number of Colleges and Universities According to the 3% NumberStage 2: 5 Questionnaires from Each College and Universities
HEIs under Central Ministries and Agencies118420
Academic HEIs112434170
Professional HEIs3215
Vocational HEIs148245225
Total275684420
Note: The data in the table come from the official website of the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. It shows the number of different higher education institutions.
Table 2. Reliability and validity of measurement model.
Table 2. Reliability and validity of measurement model.
ConstructItem CodeItemFactor LoadingCronbach’s αCRAVE
PIPI1While in school, you frequently attend entrepreneurship education theory courses.0.8440.8740.9140.726
PI2During your time at school, you frequently attend entrepreneurship seminars organized by the university.0.826
PI3While in school, you often participate in various types of entrepreneurial competitions.0.862
PI4While in school, you regularly train or practice simulations of entrepreneurial skills.0.876
PSPS1You are very satisfied with the theoretical courses related to entrepreneurship education.0.8360.8640.9070.710
PS2You are very satisfied with lectures or competitions on entrepreneurship.0.829
PS3You are very satisfied with the practical courses related to entrepreneurship.0.847
PS4You are very satisfied with the teachers of entrepreneurship education.0.859
LELE1Enhance your spirit of innovation through entrepreneurship education and learning0.8400.8940.9220.703
LE2Enhance your awareness of entrepreneurial risk through entrepreneurship education programmes.0.819
LE3You have a good grasp of basic business knowledge after learning through entrepreneurship education.0.845
LE4The entrepreneurship education programme is a great way to improve your entrepreneurial capability.0.832
LE5Improvement of your psychological quality after learning through entrepreneurship education.0.856
SSSS1My school has a well-established entrepreneurship center or mentoring organization.0.8090.8960.9230.707
SS2The school offers an entrepreneurship elective.0.846
SS3My school has a good creative atmosphere.0.843
SS4The school’s teachers are passionate and committed to entrepreneurship education.0.866
SS5School leaders place a high value on entrepreneurship education.0.838
OICOIC1You can identify potential market opportunities in industry sectors.0.8830.8500.9090.769
OIC2You can accurately identify customer needs for products and services.0.881
OIC3You are able to identify and discover business opportunities that can generate sustainable revenue.0.868
MCMC1You can effectively lead, motivate, and supervise employees.0.8270.8610.9060.707
MC2You can rationalize the allocation of human, financial, and material resources within the organization.0.815
MC3You can adjust the company’s strategic goals and business ideas in a timely manner.0.854
MC4You can effectively coordinate all tasks and various interests.0.865
FRCFRC1You can find suitable venture capitalists through road shows and competitions.0.8060.8950.9230.705
FRC2You can mobilize your parents to solve your seed capital problem.0.858
FRC3You can use your social network to help you with seed capital.0.857
FRC4You can find partners with sufficient funding.0.851
FRC5You can get start-up capital through government grants.0.827
TBCTBC1You research problems with the team to find acceptable solutions.0.8440.8570.9030.700
TBC2You share your ideas with the team and make decisions together.0.821
TBC3You can lead the team to find solutions that meet your needs.0.827
TBC4You can scientifically design the rights, responsibilities, and equity of the team’s stakeholders.0.853
IEIE1Enterprises are risk-takers with a high level of innovation.0.8510.8910.9250.754
IE2Well-established business with strong financial resources.0.873
IE3Companies continue to adjust their strategies and introduce new products and services in a competitive marketplace.0.874
IE4All departments of the enterprise cooperate closely and communicate well.0.875
ETEETE1The industry in which the Company currently operates is characterized by rapid technological change.0.8490.8970.9240.708
ETE2The marketplace is constantly generating new customers for products.0.844
ETE3It is difficult to predict the competitive behavior of a company’s competitors.0.829
ETE4It is difficult to predict how the industry will evolve in three years.0.846
ETE5The demand for products from new and existing customers of the company is highly variable.0.841
FPFP1Entrepreneurship will significantly increase your income over your pre-entrepreneurship or pre-employment income.0.8640.8410.9040.759
FP2Entrepreneurship will significantly improve your quality of life compared to before entrepreneurship.0.873
FP3Entrepreneurship will improve and enhance the living conditions of your family.0.876
GPGP1Your business has achieved the goals you had in mind before you started it.0.8340.9040.9290.722
GP2you have realized the value of your life.0.826
GP3You have achieved some success in your current business.0.871
GP4You feel that I have contributed to society by starting your own business.0.855
GP5Entrepreneurship makes you very happy.0.863
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and Fornell–Lacker criteria for discriminant validity.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and Fornell–Lacker criteria for discriminant validity.
ConstructMeanS.D.ECEDEEEP
EC3.1950.0380.823
ED3.0720.0410.0670.863
EE3.2060.0390.6030.0590.822
EP3.0840.0420.6040.0570.5880.877
Note: Diagonal numbers = Square root of AVE.
Table 4. Testing of direct effects and indirect effects.
Table 4. Testing of direct effects and indirect effects.
RelationshipsCoeffSET-Valuep ValuesLL-CIUL-CI
EC → EP0.4190.0478.9590.0000.3420.495
EE → EC0.5850.03715.8100.0000.5220.644
EE → EP0.3640.0467.8370.0000.2880.439
EE → EC → EP0.2450.0337.3920.0000.1940.304
ED × EC → EP0.2950.0555.3500.0000.2120.392
Table 5. Test the indirect effects of EE → EC → EP condition on ED at pick-a-point values.
Table 5. Test the indirect effects of EE → EC → EP condition on ED at pick-a-point values.
Condition of EDStd BetaSETLL-CIUL-CI
High ED0.3830.03810.0300.3110.459
Low ED0.1070.0452.3680.0170.194
Medium ED0.2450.0337.3920.1810.312
Index of moderated mediation0.1750.0335.2720.1230.232
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

Liu, F.; Yang, G.; Singhdong, P. A Moderated Mediation Model of Entrepreneurship Education, Competence, and Environmental Dynamics on Entrepreneurial Performance. Sustainability 2024, 16, 8502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198502

AMA Style

Liu F, Yang G, Singhdong P. A Moderated Mediation Model of Entrepreneurship Education, Competence, and Environmental Dynamics on Entrepreneurial Performance. Sustainability. 2024; 16(19):8502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198502

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Feng, Guimei Yang, and Putthiwat Singhdong. 2024. "A Moderated Mediation Model of Entrepreneurship Education, Competence, and Environmental Dynamics on Entrepreneurial Performance" Sustainability 16, no. 19: 8502. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16198502

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