Impact of Entrepreneurial Competence on Education for Sustainable Development in the 21st Century

Abstract

Entrepreneurial competence is a key element in education for fostering innovative and sustainable learning, enabling teachers and students to address 21st-century challenges. Through a validated questionnaire, this quantitative observational study examines the perceptions of 623 education professionals regarding their abilities and attitudes to develop entrepreneurial competence across key dimensions, such as organizing, leadership, communication, evaluation, team coordination, initiative, independence, and motivation. The results show that women (compared to men), professionals with managerial roles (compared to classroom teachers), and older teachers with more experience (compared to younger teachers with less experience) perceive themselves as being more competent in the skills that make up entrepreneurial competence. However, this study also identifies a widespread lack of entrepreneurial training across all demographic and professional groups, highlighting a systemic gap in teacher training for entrepreneurial education. These findings highlight the urgent need to design and implement teacher training programs that address entrepreneurship as a key competence closely linked to sustainable education. This study also recommends promoting educational policies that foster interdisciplinary collaboration and innovation among teachers to create more inclusive, transformative, and sustainable learning environments.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurial education has become a fundamental pillar for improving the education system, fostering entrepreneurial competence and training citizens to face the challenges of the 21st century with initiative, creativity, and the ability to transform ideas into real projects [1,2]. It includes essential teaching skills that enhance professional performance and promote adaptive learning environments [3,4].

Despite its growing recognition, challenges remain in fully integrating entrepreneurial education into academic settings. One of the key misconceptions is the idea that entrepreneurship is solely linked to starting new businesses or ventures. Entrepreneurship is a transversal skill applicable across various disciplines and professional fields. Therefore, it is essential to embed entrepreneurial education within university departments, schools, and academic programs, ensuring that students from diverse backgrounds develop an entrepreneurial mindset. Furthermore, fostering an entrepreneurial mindset among educators can drive systemic changes within educational institutions, allowing them to serve as catalysts for sustainable transformation [5,6].

The relationship between entrepreneurship and sustainability is crucial. Education in the 21st century must address technological, cultural, environmental, and economic challenges. A sustainable education system aims to develop competent individuals and promote educational leadership with an ethical, proactive, and strategic vision. Teacher entrepreneurs play a key role in this process by generating impact through innovation and problem-solving, adopting a holistic approach that addresses social, economic, and environmental dimensions [6,7,8].

Recognizing the broader role of entrepreneurship in education, the European Union has formally identified entrepreneurial competence as one of the eight key competencies for lifelong learning, emphasizing its essential role in fostering creativity, initiative, and the ability to turn ideas into action [9]. The EntreComp Framework, developed as part of an EU initiative, provides a structured model for teaching entrepreneurship across all education levels, highlighting its applicability beyond business creation and its relevance from early childhood education to higher education and across various professional sectors [10].

At the global level, various organizations highlight the importance of integrating entrepreneurial education into curricula. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) provides a comprehensive analysis of entrepreneurial activities and attitudes worldwide, offering insights into how different education systems influence entrepreneurial behavior [11]. Meanwhile, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) assesses key competencies for the future workforce through initiatives such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which, in addition to evaluating mathematics, reading, and science, includes assessments of problem-solving and critical thinking skills that are essential for entrepreneurship. Similarly, the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) examines teachers’ perceptions, training, and instructional practices, including aspects related to entrepreneurial education and innovation in teaching [12,13].

By embedding entrepreneurship as a key competence in education, teachers acquire essential tools to foster sustainability through innovative teaching methodologies, interdisciplinary collaboration, and critical thinking. Entrepreneurship education plays a crucial role in addressing complex global challenges, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and equipping educators with the competencies needed to develop and implement solutions for both local and global communities [14,15]. This strong connection between entrepreneurship and sustainability highlights the importance of entrepreneurial competence in education, as it equips teachers with the skills to develop innovative solutions to social, economic, and environmental challenges within their communities. Strengthening this competence in educational practices aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4, which focuses on quality education. Specifically, target 4.4 emphasizes the development of entrepreneurial skills to enhance economic sectors and drive social transformation. Additionally, fostering entrepreneurial competence in education contributes to SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth) by equipping students with the necessary skills to adapt to an evolving labor market, promoting job creation and economic resilience. Furthermore, entrepreneurship can contribute directly to SDG 13 (climate action) by fostering solutions to environmental challenges through innovation and sustainability-driven practices. The integration of entrepreneurial thinking into education encourages students to develop climate-conscious innovations that address environmental issues on both local and global scales [16,17].

At the national level, many European countries have implemented significant reforms in entrepreneurship education. For instance, Poland reformed its “Fundamentals of Entrepreneurship” curriculum in 2018 and replaced it in 2023 with “Business and Management”, allowing students to take entrepreneurship education at an advanced level, including an A-level exam [18]. These reforms have influenced the training and professional development of teachers, shaping their perceptions of their own entrepreneurial competencies.

Similar trends can be observed across Europe, where interdisciplinary and experiential learning approaches have been introduced to better prepare students for an uncertain and rapidly changing labor market [19]. In the Nordic countries, including Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, entrepreneurship education has been systematically integrated into national curricula. These countries emphasize student-centered learning, problem-solving, and interdisciplinary collaboration to develop an entrepreneurial mindset from an early age [20]. In Finland, entrepreneurship education is embedded across all levels of schooling as part of its national curriculum framework. The Finnish National Agency for Education emphasizes the importance of entrepreneurship competence, integrating it into formal education to develop students’ initiative, creativity, and ability to turn ideas into action. Additionally, vocational education programs emphasize entrepreneurial competence as a key transversal skill, ensuring that students acquire both theoretical knowledge and hands-on experience in real business environments [21,22].

Beyond Europe, different educational models shape entrepreneurship education worldwide. Many Asian education systems prioritize government-led initiatives and structured entrepreneurship programs. A notable example is the KAB (Know About Business) program, launched to raise entrepreneurship awareness and improve entrepreneurial capacity among undergraduate students. This program aims to equip students with the necessary skills and knowledge to embark on entrepreneurial ventures, thereby enhancing their employability and fostering economic development [23,24]. In Latin America, entrepreneurship education is often framed as a tool for economic development and social mobility. Higher education institutions in countries like Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay actively support entrepreneurs through courses, incubation, and acceleration activities, adapting to regional economic challenges and policy priorities [25].

Furthermore, teacher training in entrepreneurship is essential to ensure a sustainable education system that prepares students to adapt to change, tackle emerging challenges, and promote innovation with social and environmental responsibility. Strengthening entrepreneurial competence among educators equips them with problem-solving skills, adaptive strategies, and ethical leadership, ensuring they can incorporate sustainability into their teaching practices [26,27,28].

Therefore, educational leadership must promote sustainable entrepreneurship to transform social reality, moving beyond isolated projects or initiatives. Entrepreneurial education should empower teachers to generate structural changes in the education system, bridging the gap between academic knowledge and real-world challenges. In doing so, teachers must be able to transmit knowledge and, at the same time, promote ethical values and social responsibility, integrating principles of sustainability into their pedagogical practice [6].

In the field of education, entrepreneurial education aims to develop these skills in students. However, to achieve this, teachers must first acquire, develop, and apply them in their daily practice. In this sense, the entrepreneurial teacher becomes a reference and educational leader, capable of promoting active methodologies, generating sustainable and inclusive learning environments, and stimulating critical thinking and creativity in the classroom [29]. However, several studies have shown that there is a lack of teacher training in this area, which hinders its effective integration into teaching and limits its impact on student learning [30].

The lack of training in entrepreneurship education remains a constraint, highlighting the need for continuous professional development that equips teachers with innovative strategies and practical approaches based on active learning, fostering creativity, initiative, and learner autonomy [31,32]. Consequently, the objective of this study is to analyze teachers’ perceptions of their abilities and attitudes in developing entrepreneurial competence. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research question: How do teachers perceive their own abilities and attitudes to develop entrepreneurial competence across key dimensions such as organizing, leadership, communication, evaluation, team coordination, initiative, independence, and motivation?

Although the conceptualization of entrepreneurial competence varies across different frameworks, many studies highlight a set of widely recognized core dimensions. This study is structured in three parts, with the second part specifically analyzing eight dimensions (D3 to D10) related to entrepreneurial skills that make up entrepreneurial competence. These include organizing, leadership, effective communication, evaluation, team coordination, initiative, independence, innovation, and motivation. These competencies are essential for fostering an entrepreneurial mindset and enabling educators to support students in developing problem-solving abilities, adaptability, and self-efficacy. The initiative reflects an individual’s capacity for proactivity and responsibility, while team coordination facilitates collaboration and trust in educational settings. Organizing allows for efficient resource management, and leadership inspires innovation and guidance. Communication skills are crucial for exchanging knowledge effectively, while evaluation and record-keeping contribute to continuous improvement. Lastly, motivation enables resilience, influence, and commitment toward shared goals [4,33,34].

This study also identifies strengths and areas for improvement in teacher training and provides relevant information for the design of specific training programs that promote entrepreneurial competence in teachers and, therefore, strengthen sustainable education in schools.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is an observational research study, with a cross-sectional design and a quantitative approach, and is divided into three main sections. Data collection was carried out at a single point in time, with no subsequent follow-up of participants. No variables were intervened or manipulated, but rather participants’ characteristics were observed and recorded as they were at the time of the study [35]. Due to its descriptive and cross-sectional nature, this study does not seek to establish causal relationships but focuses on describing the characteristics of the population at a specific point in time. This implies that the conclusions obtained are limited to a descriptive interpretation of the data, without being able to infer causalities [36].

2.1. Population and Sample

This research focused on education professionals, such as principals, secretaries, teachers, professors, and researchers. Participants were selected through non-probabilistic convenience sampling, which was based on accessibility, availability, and willingness to participate, without applying random selection criteria or influencing participants’ choice to participate. Participation was completely anonymous and voluntary, ensuring that respondents could answer freely without external pressure.

The final sample consisted of 623 education professionals, including participants from Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Chile. These countries were chosen based on existing academic collaborations and accessibility through professional networks, allowing for a diverse representation of different educational contexts.

The sample was composed of education professionals from various roles within the academic sector. It included 18 directors, 11 secretaries, and 9 counselors, along with 63 research staff members. Additionally, there were 130 primary school teachers, 30 secondary school teachers, and 296 university teachers. The remaining 66 participants were categorized under “Other” roles, encompassing various positions related to education.

2.2. Instrument, Variables, and Procedure

The research aimed to assess the teachers’ perception of their entrepreneurial competence; a questionnaire structured in 3 blocks was designed, each corresponding to one of the sections of the study. This questionnaire included 14 dimensions and a total of 72 items, whose responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert scale. The first block assessed dimensions 1 and 2, the second block focused on dimensions 3 to 10, and the third block covered dimensions 11 to 14. This enabled the generation of 71 ordinal variables derived from the different items, with item 51 being of a distinct nature and, therefore, excluded from any dimension. Its purpose was for respondents to prioritize the eight key skills according to their degree of development.

The questionnaire underwent a rigorous validation process. First, expert judgment was carried out by 16 academics from various specializations, including professors, lecturers, and other specialists. The content validity index (CVI) was used to assess the validity of the items, and the results obtained reflected high validity [37]. No item had a value lower than 0.88, and 72.22% achieved a perfect CVR of 1. In addition, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted to validate the structure of the questionnaire, the results of which were satisfactory in the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The reliability of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (α), with an overall index of 0.846, indicating high internal consistency [38].

As for the dependent variables, a total dependent variable (S1_72) was established, calculated by dividing the sum of all the responses by 71, to obtain a global indicator of the degree of agreement with the questionnaire. For Block 2 (S19_50), corresponding to the second section of the study, a specific variable was generated from the mean of the 31 items that made it up. The independent variables included factors such as gender, age, teaching experience, and position held at the school.

• Sex: men and women.
• Age: 25 years or less, 26–35 years, 36–45 years, 46–55 years, and over 56 years.
• Teaching experience: 0–5 years, 6–15 years, 16–25 years, and More than 25 years.
• Position held in the center: director, secretary, counselor, teacher, secondary school teacher, university teacher, research staff, or other.

The questionnaire was distributed remotely using Google Forms between 2022 and 2023, with no time limit, always ensuring the anonymity of the participants and the confidentiality of the responses. The questionnaire was carried out through institutional channels, academic mailing lists, and professional networks, ensuring broad participation from diverse educational professionals.

The data did not follow a normal distribution. Therefore, resampling techniques such as the Monte Carlo simulation and the bootstrap procedure were used to analyze the significant differences between the variables or factors studied [39]. In addition, an independent sample ANOVA analysis was employed, the results of which included the F- statistic, p-value, and effect size, measured by eta squared, and calculated through the multivariate general linear model in SPSS Statistics 26. Post hoc tests were performed under the assumption of unequal variances, using statistics such as Tamhane’s T2, Dunnett’s T3, Games–Howell, and Dunnett’s C. These procedures allowed for the identification of the direction of the effect. These procedures made it possible to identify the direction and impact of the effects of the factors analyzed in the ANOVA tables.

3. Results

The results are detailed according to the objective of the second part of the research, which corresponds to Block 2 of the questionnaire, that is, to analyze the perception that teachers have of their own abilities to develop entrepreneurial competence.

Table 1. Descriptions of the dimensions corresponding to B2.

Dimensions	Item	Mean	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	SD	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
D3 = Organizing	S19_23	4.087	4.050	4.129	0.500	0.472	0.525
D4 = Leadership	S24_27	3.986	3.937	4.032	0.597	0.572	0.622
D5 = Effective communication	S28_31	3.893	3.842	3.945	0.670	0.640	0.698
D6 = Evaluation	S32_35	4.144	4.099	4.191	0.566	0.538	0.593
D7 = Team coordination	S36_39	4.715	4.674	4.752	0.483	0.449	0.516
D8 = Initiative	S40_42	4.655	4.622	4.686	0.413	0.394	0.433
D9 = Independence and innovation	S43_46	4.530	4.485	4.576	0.561	0.529	0.589
D10 = Motivation	S47_50	4.411	4.362	4.461	0.650	0.625	0.672
B2 = Entrepreneurial skills	S19_50	4.285	4.251	4.317	0.425	0.398	0.451
TOTAL	S1_72	4.294	4.266	4.324	0.370	0.349	0.390

Source: Own elaboration.

shows the descriptive statistics corresponding to the dimensions that make up the second block of the questionnaire.

Table 1 presents the mean scores for each dimension of the questionnaire. For the third dimension, the mean score was (M = 4.087, SD = 0.500); for the fourth dimension, it was (M = 3.986, SD = 0.597); for the fifth dimension, it was (M = 3.893, SD = 0.670); for the sixth dimension, it was (M= 4.144, SD= 0.566); for the seventh dimension, it was (M = 4.715, SD = 0.483); for the eighth dimension, it was (M= 4.655, SD = 0.413); for the ninth dimension, it was (M = 4.530, SD = 0.561); and for the tenth dimension, it was (M = 4.411, SD = 0.650). In addition, the mean score for the second block of the questionnaire was (M = 4.285, SD = 0.425).

3.1. Analysis of Results by Sex

The total sample of respondents was evenly distributed between men and women, with 312 men and 311 women, indicating an almost identical distribution, as the percentage of men (50.08%) was very similar to that of women (49.92%). To determine whether there were differences in the results according to sex, an ANOVA analysis for independent samples was carried out. The results of this analysis are shown in

Table 2. ANOVA for independent samples according to the sex of participants.

Item	H = Men				M = Women
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P19	3.90	0.57	3.90	3.90	4.18	0.59	4.18	4.19	37.763	0.000	0.057	H < M
P20	3.84	0.67	3.84	3.84	4.07	0.80	4.07	4.07	15.340	0.000	0.024	H < M
P21	3.98	0.37	3.98	3.98	4.11	0.41	4.10	4.11	16.589	0.000	0.026	H < M
P22	3.98	0.59	3.98	3.98	4.34	0.57	4.34	4.34	58.809	0.000	0.087	H < M
P23	4.11	0.68	4.11	4.11	4.37	0.60	4.37	4.38	26.436	0.000	0.041	H < M
P24	3.70	0.78	3.70	3.70	4.02	0.78	4.01	4.02	24.976	0.000	0.039	H < M
P25	3.89	0.75	3.89	3.89	4.28	0.77	4.28	4.28	41.299	0.000	0.062	H < M
P26	4.00	0.64	4.00	4.00	4.15	0.56	4.15	4.15	9.313	0.002	0.015	H < M
P27	3.85	0.72	3.84	3.85	4.01	0.65	4.01	4.02	9.188	0.003	0.015	H < M
P28	3.76	0.67	3.76	3.77	4.10	0.71	4.09	4.10	36.429	0.000	0.055	H < M
P29	3.82	0.83	3.82	3.83	4.08	0.87	4.07	4.08	13.763	0.000	0.022	H < M
P30	3.63	0.91	3.62	3.63	3.96	0.95	3.96	3.97	20.217	0.000	0.032	H < M
P31	3.75	0.86	3.75	3.76	4.04	0.89	4.04	4.04	16.565	0.000	0.026	H < M
P32	4.08	0.54	4.08	4.08	4.22	0.54	4.22	4.22	10.717	0.001	0.017	H < M
P33	3.77	0.51	3.77	3.77	4.05	0.54	4.05	4.05	43.859	0.000	0.066	H < M
P34	4.09	0.71	4.08	4.09	4.35	0.67	4.35	4.36	23.030	0.000	0.036	H < M
P35	4.17	0.83	4.16	4.17	4.43	0.70	4.43	4.43	18.366	0.000	0.029	H < M
P36	4.63	0.65	4.63	4.63	4.76	0.57	4.76	4.76	7.147	0.008	0.011	H < M
P37	4.69	0.46	4.69	4.69	4.85	0.36	4.85	4.85	24.230	0.000	0.038	H < M
P38	4.63	0.51	4.63	4.63	4.74	0.51	4.74	4.74	7.046	0.008	0.011	H < M
P39	4.64	0.51	4.64	4.64	4.77	0.51	4.77	4.77	10.159	0.002	0.016	H < M
P40	4.78	0.41	4.78	4.78	4.70	0.46	4.70	4.71	4.889	0.027	0.008	H > M
P41	4.75	0.45	4.75	4.75	4.68	0.49	4.68	4.68	3.864	0.050	0.006	H > M
P42	4.43	0.76	4.42	4.43	4.59	0.72	4.58	4.59	7.147	0.008	0.011	H < M
P43	4.66	0.48	4.66	4.66	4.69	0.49	4.69	4.69	0.511	0.475	0.001
P44	4.40	0.68	4.40	4.40	4.62	0.64	4.62	4.62	17.841	0.000	0.028	H < M
P45	4.46	0.66	4.46	4.47	4.62	0.60	4.62	4.62	9.045	0.003	0.014	H < M
P46	4.32	0.66	4.31	4.32	4.47	0.65	4.47	4.47	8.675	0.003	0.014	H < M
P47	4.43	0.72	4.43	4.44	4.67	0.61	4.67	4.67	19.991	0.000	0.031	H < M
P48	4.46	0.54	4.46	4.47	4.64	0.56	4.63	4.64	15.080	0.000	0.024	H < M
P49	4.17	0.78	4.16	4.17	4.39	0.71	4.39	4.39	14.169	0.000	0.022	H < M
P50	4.12	1.05	4.11	4.12	4.40	0.83	4.40	4.40	13.981	0.000	0.022	H < M

Source: Own elaboration.

.

The analysis of Block 2 of the questionnaire revealed statistically significant differences for items P19-P42 and P44-P50. These differences were observed across all dimensions, except for dimension D8 = S40_42 = Initiative.

Post hoc tests indicated that women scored slightly higher than men in the overall mean of Block 2 and in most individual items, except for P40 and P41. For these two items, men reported slightly higher scores than women. A visual representation of these differences is provided in Figure 1.

These findings align with previous research suggesting that women tend to rate themselves higher in competencies related to collaboration, adaptability, and ethical responsibility, which are increasingly valued in sustainable entrepreneurship [40,41,42]. Meanwhile, the slightly higher male scores in taking responsibility for the outcomes of one’s actions (P40) and fulfilling commitments despite sacrifices (P41) may reflect gendered social expectations, as men are often encouraged to exhibit greater perseverance, autonomy, and accountability in decision-making roles [43,44].

Although these gender-based variations exist, the overall high scores across all items indicate that educators—regardless of gender—perceive themselves as highly competent in entrepreneurial skills. This suggests that entrepreneurship education is becoming increasingly internalized as a key competence in the teaching profession. However, recognizing and addressing potential gender biases in self-perception remains crucial to ensuring balanced skill development. Furthermore, implementing more inclusive training programs that reinforce both resilience and collaborative skills can better prepare educators to meet the demands of entrepreneurship and sustainability education [45,46].

3.2. Analysis of Results by Age

The total sample of respondents was distributed in five age groups, with the following percentages: 52 participants (8.35%) in the group aged 25 years or less, 176 (28.25%) in the group aged 26–35 years, 239 (38.36%) in the group aged 36–45 years, 88 (14.13%) in the group aged 46–55 years, and 68 (10.91%) in the group aged over 56 years.

To analyze whether there were significant differences in the results of the questionnaire according to age groups, an ANOVA analysis was performed for independent samples. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 3. ANOVA for independent samples according to the age of participants.

Item	J = 25 Years or Less				A = 26–35 Years
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U
P19	3.94	0.54	3.79	4.09	4.07	0.57	3.99	4.16
P20	4.00	0.66	3.82	4.18	3.91	0.74	3.80	4.02
P21	4.10	0.50	3.96	4.23	4.01	0.30	3.97	4.06
P22	4.23	0.58	4.07	4.39	4.18	0.55	4.09	4.26
P23	4.06	0.57	3.90	4.22	4.31	0.62	4.21	4.40
P24	3.71	0.72	3.51	3.91	3.86	0.80	3.74	3.98
P25	4.00	0.84	3.77	4.23	4.14	0.76	4.03	4.26
P26	3.85	0.75	3.64	4.06	4.13	0.54	4.04	4.21
P27	3.71	0.64	3.53	3.89	3.97	0.66	3.87	4.06
P28	3.92	0.59	3.76	4.09	3.94	0.69	3.83	4.04
P29	3.75	0.76	3.54	3.96	3.93	0.89	3.80	4.06
P30	3.83	0.71	3.63	4.02	3.76	0.97	3.61	3.90
P31	3.85	0.64	3.67	4.02	3.90	0.91	3.77	4.04
P32	4.00	0.52	3.85	4.15	4.14	0.49	4.07	4.21
P33	3.77	0.65	3.59	3.95	3.90	0.45	3.83	3.97
P34	3.87	0.77	3.65	4.08	4.26	0.65	4.16	4.36
P35	3.90	0.80	3.68	4.13	4.38	0.75	4.26	4.49
P36	4.25	0.88	4.00	4.50	4.78	0.50	4.71	4.86
P37	4.63	0.49	4.50	4.77	4.80	0.40	4.74	4.86
P38	4.33	0.81	4.10	4.55	4.76	0.43	4.70	4.82
P39	4.25	0.84	4.02	4.48	4.77	0.44	4.70	4.83
P40	4.37	0.53	4.22	4.51	4.78	0.41	4.72	4.85
P41	4.33	0.58	4.16	4.49	4.76	0.44	4.69	4.82
P42	4.10	0.87	3.85	4.34	4.53	0.76	4.41	4.64
P43	4.38	0.60	4.22	4.55	4.69	0.47	4.62	4.76
P44	4.10	0.82	3.87	4.33	4.56	0.62	4.46	4.65
P45	4.12	0.78	3.90	4.33	4.62	0.56	4.54	4.70
P46	4.13	0.86	3.89	4.38	4.39	0.61	4.30	4.48
P47	4.19	0.86	3.95	4.43	4.60	0.62	4.51	4.70
P48	4.17	0.81	3.95	4.40	4.60	0.50	4.52	4.67
P49	4.29	0.70	4.09	4.48	4.24	0.77	4.13	4.36
P50	3.92	1.10	3.62	4.23	4.32	0.84	4.20	4.45
Item	M = 36–45 years				E = 46–55 years
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U
P19	3.97	0.56	3.90	4.05	4.13	0.64	3.99	4.26
P20	3.89	0.75	3.79	3.98	3.94	0.79	3.78	4.11
P21	4.02	0.34	3.97	4.06	4.00	0.48	3.90	4.10
P22	4.12	0.61	4.04	4.19	4.11	0.63	3.98	4.25
P23	4.18	0.65	4.10	4.27	4.24	0.69	4.09	4.39
P24	3.84	0.81	3.74	3.94	3.91	0.84	3.73	4.09
P25	4.03	0.82	3.93	4.14	4.09	0.81	3.92	4.26
P26	4.05	0.60	3.98	4.13	4.09	0.62	3.96	4.22
P27	3.87	0.71	3.78	3.97	3.97	0.73	3.81	4.12
P28	3.87	0.73	3.78	3.96	4.00	0.76	3.84	4.16
P29	4.00	0.87	3.89	4.11	4.07	0.88	3.88	4.25
P30	3.74	1.00	3.62	3.87	3.78	1.01	3.57	4.00
P31	3.82	0.95	3.69	3.94	3.90	0.97	3.69	4.10
P32	4.19	0.56	4.12	4.26	4.15	0.60	4.02	4.27
P33	3.89	0.54	3.82	3.96	3.94	0.53	3.83	4.06
P34	4.24	0.71	4.15	4.33	4.26	0.70	4.11	4.41
P35	4.28	0.79	4.18	4.38	4.38	0.76	4.21	4.54
P36	4.74	0.57	4.66	4.81	4.72	0.66	4.58	4.86
P37	4.77	0.42	4.72	4.83	4.81	0.40	4.72	4.89
P38	4.67	0.50	4.61	4.73	4.81	0.40	4.72	4.89
P39	4.73	0.48	4.67	4.79	4.80	0.41	4.71	4.88
P40	4.78	0.41	4.73	4.84	4.78	0.41	4.70	4.87
P41	4.76	0.45	4.70	4.82	4.76	0.45	4.67	4.86
P42	4.60	0.68	4.52	4.69	4.60	0.69	4.46	4.75
P43	4.76	0.44	4.71	4.82	4.73	0.45	4.63	4.82
P44	4.57	0.62	4.49	4.65	4.56	0.69	4.41	4.70
P45	4.62	0.60	4.55	4.70	4.58	0.69	4.43	4.73
P46	4.48	0.63	4.40	4.56	4.42	0.69	4.27	4.57
P47	4.59	0.69	4.50	4.68	4.67	0.54	4.56	4.79
P48	4.62	0.53	4.55	4.69	4.58	0.50	4.47	4.68
P49	4.39	0.74	4.30	4.48	4.20	0.79	4.04	4.37
P50	4.30	1.02	4.17	4.43	4.39	0.82	4.21	4.56
Item	R = Over 56 years
	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P19	4.15	0.76	3.96	4.33	2226.914	0.000	0.014	J < M < A < E < R
P20	4.29	0.65	4.14	4.45	4376.282	0.000	0.027	M < A < E < J < R
P21	4.22	0.54	4.09	4.35	4532.085	0.000	0.028	E < A < M < J < R
P22	4.26	0.70	4.09	4.44	1150.104	0.000	0.007	E.M < A < J < R
P23	4.41	0.72	4.24	4.59	3150.712	0.000	0.020	J < M < E < A < R
P24	3.96	0.76	3.77	4.14	816.359	0.000	0.005	J < M < A< E < R
P25	4.16	0.64	4.01	4.32	810.952	0.000	0.005	J < M < E < A < R
P26	4.16	0.64	4.01	4.32	2610.787	0.000	0.016	J < M < E < A < R
P27	4.15	0.63	3.99	4.30	3633.890	0.000	0.023	J < M < E.A < R
P28	4.03	0.69	3.86	4.20	986.493	0.000	0.006	M < J< A < E < R
P29	3.82	0.77	3.64	4.01	1725.856	0.000	0.011	J < R < A < M < E
P30	4.07	0.74	3.89	4.25	1751.948	0.000	0.011	M < A < E < J < R
P31	4.19	0.53	4.06	4.32	2464.416	0.000	0.016	M < J < E.A < R
P32	4.13	0.57	3.99	4.27	1321.222	0.000	0.008	J < R < A.E < M
P33	4.07	0.65	3.92	4.23	2672.210	0.000	0.017	J < M < A < E < R
P34	4.25	0.74	4.07	4.43	3683.262	0.000	0.023	J < M.R < A.E
P35	4.38	0.77	4.20	4.57	4336.208	0.000	0.027	J < M < A.E.R
P36	4.65	0.59	4.50	4.79	8660.598	0.000	0.053	J < R < E < M < A
P37	4.75	0.44	4.64	4.86	1741.973	0.000	0.011	J < R < M < A < E
P38	4.66	0.48	4.55	4.78	9251.908	0.000	0.056	J < R < M < A < E
P39	4.71	0.46	4.59	4.82	12525.534	0.000	0.074	J < R < M < A < E
P40	4.74	0.44	4.63	4.84	11396.338	0.000	0.068	J < R < M.A.E
P41	4.69	0.47	4.58	4.80	10484.841	0.000	0.063	J < R < A < E.M
P42	4.29	0.75	4.11	4.48	7030.259	0.000	0.043	J < R < A < E.M
P43	4.47	0.50	4.35	4.59	10556.220	0.000	0.063	J < R < A < E < M
P44	4.41	0.67	4.25	4.57	6488.237	0.000	0.040	J < R < A.E < M
P45	4.32	0.58	4.18	4.46	10166.366	0.000	0.061	J < R < E < A.M
P46	4.28	0.64	4.12	4.44	3564.553	0.000	0.022	J < R < A < E < M
P47	4.41	0.70	4.24	4.58	5699.634	0.000	0.035	J < R < M < A < E
P48	4.44	0.53	4.31	4.57	8285.458	0.000	0.050	J < R < E < A < M
P49	4.07	0.76	3.89	4.26	2892.296	0.000	0.018	R < E < A < J < M
P50	4.06	0.99	3.82	4.30	3109.986	0.000	0.020	J < R < M < A < E

Source: Own elaboration.

.

Statistically significant differences were found in the dimensions corresponding to B2 = P19-P50 of the questionnaire. Also, post hoc tests revealed that the age group J = 25 years or less scored slightly lower than the other age groups in almost all dimensions. The only exception was in dimension D3 = S19_23 = Organizing, where the youngest group did not differ significantly from the other groups. Figure 2 provides a visual representation of these differences.

These results align with previous research suggesting that entrepreneurial competence tends to develop through experience and exposure to real-world challenges [47]. Younger individuals, particularly those in early career stages or still in academic settings, often have fewer opportunities to engage in decision-making, leadership, and risk-taking activities, which are key aspects of entrepreneurial competence. Consequently, they may perceive themselves as slightly less skilled in areas such as initiative, perseverance, and problem-solving compared to their older counterparts, who have had more professional and personal experiences to reinforce these competencies [48,49,50].

However, while experience plays a crucial role in developing entrepreneurial skills, education also has the potential to foster these competencies when designed effectively. Some studies suggest that rigid, standardized approaches to entrepreneurship education may inadvertently limit students’ creativity and problem-solving abilities by promoting predefined models of entrepreneurial success rather than encouraging adaptability and innovation [51].

The fact that no significant differences were observed in organizing ability (D3) suggests that structuring tasks, managing time, and coordinating activities are skills that younger individuals may acquire early, possibly through academic and extracurricular experiences [52]. This reinforces the idea that while some aspects of entrepreneurial competence develop with experience, others can be fostered through education and structured training. Therefore, providing younger students opportunities to participate in real-world entrepreneurial projects, leadership roles, and collaborative initiatives could improve their self-perception of entrepreneurial skills and accelerate their development in key dimensions [47,53].

3.3. Analysis of Results by Position Held in the Centre

The total sample of respondents is also distributed according to the position held by the participants in their educational institution. In total, 18 persons (2.89%) hold the position of director, 63 (10.11%) are researchers, and 130 (20.87%) are primary school teachers. In addition, 9 participants (1.44%) have the role of guidance counselor, while 66 persons (10.59%) are classified as other 30 respondents (4.82%) are secondary school teachers, and 296 (47.51%) hold the position of University teacher. Finally, 11 persons (1.77%) hold the position of secretary.

To analyze whether there are significant differences in the results of the questionnaire according to the position held in the center by the participants, an ANOVA analysis was carried out for independent samples. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 4. ANOVA for independent samples according to the positions held in the center by the participants.

Item	D = Director				I = Research Staff				M = Primary School Teacher				O = Counsellor
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P19	4.39	0.70	4.04	4.74	4.21	0.65	4.04	4.37	3.96	0.56	3.86	4.06	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	3.766	0.001	0.041	P < D.O
P20	4.22	0.88	3.79	4.66	4.22	0.75	4.03	4.41	4.00	0.68	3.88	4.12	4.67	0.50	4.28	5.05	4.298	0.000	0.047	P.T.U < I.O
P21	4.00	0.49	3.76	4.24	4.11	0.44	4.00	4.22	4.06	0.39	3.99	4.13	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	2.376	0.021	0.026	P.U < O
P22	4.39	0.70	4.04	4.74	4.40	0.58	4.25	4.54	4.13	0.63	4.02	4.24	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	4.339	0.000	0.047	P < U.T.D < I.O
P23	4.61	0.70	4.26	4.96	4.30	0.59	4.15	4.45	4.18	0.67	4.07	4.30	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	4.043	0.000	0.044	P < M.T.U.D < O
P24	4.06	1.00	3.56	4.55	4.00	0.84	3.79	4.21	3.89	0.77	3.76	4.03	3.67	0.71	3.12	4.21	0.871	0.529	0.010
P25	4.17	0.86	3.74	4.59	4.17	0.87	3.96	4.39	4.07	0.75	3.94	4.20	4.11	0.33	3.85	4.37	0.507	0.830	0.006
P26	4.17	0.62	3.86	4.47	3.87	0.63	3.71	4.03	4.08	0.62	3.98	4.19	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	2.312	0.025	0.026
P27	4.06	0.80	3.66	4.45	3.73	0.54	3.59	3.87	3.99	0.71	3.87	4.12	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	2.773	0.008	0.031
P28	4.22	0.88	3.79	4.66	4.10	0.71	3.92	4.27	3.94	0.70	3.82	4.06	4.11	0.33	3.85	4.37	1.614	0.128	0.018
P29	4.39	0.92	3.93	4.84	4.13	0.81	3.92	4.33	3.96	0.83	3.82	4.11	3.67	0.71	3.12	4.21	3.734	0.001	0.041	P < I.T.D
P30	3.89	1.23	3.28	4.50	3.97	0.90	3.74	4.19	3.91	0.88	3.75	4.06	3.67	0.71	3.12	4.21	0.927	0.484	0.010
P31	4.06	1.16	3.48	4.63	3.97	0.86	3.75	4.19	3.98	0.82	3.84	4.13	4.11	0.33	3.85	4.37	1.070	0.381	0.012
P32	4.17	0.62	3.86	4.47	4.06	0.50	3.94	4.19	4.18	0.55	4.08	4.27	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	1.829	0.079	0.020
P33	4.00	0.49	3.76	4.24	3.81	0.56	3.67	3.95	3.94	0.58	3.84	4.04	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	2.500	0.015	0.028	P.I < O
P34	4.56	0.70	4.21	4.91	4.17	0.85	3.96	4.39	4.18	0.68	4.06	4.29	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	3.011	0.004	0.033	P < T.D
P35	4.72	0.67	4.39	5.05	4.22	0.85	4.01	4.44	4.22	0.76	4.09	4.35	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	3.493	0.001	0.038	P < D.O
P36	4.72	0.67	4.39	5.05	4.41	0.84	4.20	4.62	4.74	0.54	4.65	4.83	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	2.842	0.006	0.031	I < M.U
P37	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.70	0.46	4.58	4.81	4.77	0.42	4.70	4.84	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	1.395	0.204	0.016
P38	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.46	0.78	4.26	4.66	4.66	0.48	4.58	4.74	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	3.395	0.001	0.037	I < U
P39	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.38	0.79	4.18	4.58	4.73	0.46	4.65	4.81	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	5.091	0.000	0.055	I < T.M.U.D.O
P40	4.78	0.43	4.57	4.99	4.51	0.54	4.37	4.64	4.84	0.37	4.77	4.90	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	4.459	0.000	0.048	I < U.M
P41	4.72	0.46	4.49	4.95	4.44	0.62	4.29	4.60	4.84	0.37	4.77	4.90	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	4.848	0.000	0.052	I < T.U.M
P42	4.39	0.78	4.00	4.78	4.30	0.84	4.09	4.51	4.62	0.67	4.50	4.73	3.67	0.71	3.12	4.21	3.958	0.000	0.043	O < U.M.T
P43	4.61	0.50	4.36	4.86	4.48	0.56	4.33	4.62	4.76	0.45	4.68	4.84	4.11	0.33	3.85	4.37	4.526	0.000	0.049	O.I < T.U.M
P44	4.56	0.70	4.21	4.91	4.27	0.83	4.06	4.48	4.58	0.60	4.47	4.68	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	1.930	0.062	0.021
P45	4.56	0.70	4.21	4.91	4.27	0.79	4.07	4.47	4.62	0.57	4.52	4.72	4.11	0.33	3.85	4.37	3.571	0.001	0.039	I < U.M.T
P46	4.28	0.67	3.95	4.61	4.10	0.78	3.90	4.29	4.51	0.60	4.40	4.61	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	2.849	0.006	0.031	I < U.M.T
P47	4.56	0.62	4.25	4.86	4.35	0.85	4.14	4.56	4.58	0.68	4.47	4.70	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	1.264	0.266	0.014
P48	4.56	0.62	4.25	4.86	4.35	0.79	4.15	4.55	4.60	0.51	4.51	4.69	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	1.618	0.127	0.018
P49	3.89	0.76	3.51	4.27	4.27	0.57	4.13	4.41	4.39	0.73	4.27	4.52	4.00	1.00	3.23	4.77	2.069	0.045	0.023
P50	4.17	0.71	3.82	4.52	3.95	0.96	3.71	4.19	4.32	1.04	4.14	4.50	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	1.371	0.215	0.015
Item	S = Secretary				P = Secondary School Teacher				U = University Teacher				T = Other
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P19	4.09	0.70	3.62	4.56	3.80	0.55	3.59	4.01	4.02	0.60	3.95	4.09	4.08	0.51	3.95	4.20	3.766	0.001	0.041	P < D.O
P20	4.18	0.75	3.68	4.69	3.67	0.61	3.44	3.89	3.89	0.74	3.81	3.98	3.82	0.78	3.63	4.01	4.298	0.000	0.047	P.T.U < I.O
P21	4.18	0.60	3.78	4.59	3.93	0.45	3.77	4.10	4.02	0.37	3.97	4.06	4.03	0.35	3.94	4.12	2.376	0.021	0.026	P.U < O
P22	4.18	0.75	3.68	4.69	3.80	0.55	3.59	4.01	4.11	0.59	4.05	4.18	4.23	0.55	4.09	4.36	4.339	0.000	0.047	P < U.T.D < I.O
P23	4.45	0.82	3.90	5.01	3.93	0.69	3.68	4.19	4.24	0.66	4.16	4.31	4.21	0.54	4.08	4.35	4.043	0.000	0.044	P < M.T.U.D < O
P24	3.73	0.90	3.12	4.33	3.67	0.66	3.42	3.91	3.84	0.80	3.75	3.93	3.83	0.80	3.64	4.03	0.871	0.529	0.010
P25	3.91	0.70	3.44	4.38	3.97	0.76	3.68	4.25	4.10	0.78	4.01	4.19	3.98	0.83	3.78	4.19	0.507	0.830	0.006
P26	4.27	0.79	3.74	4.80	3.90	0.66	3.65	4.15	4.11	0.60	4.05	4.18	4.03	0.50	3.91	4.15	2.312	0.025	0.026
P27	4.18	0.87	3.59	4.77	3.87	0.68	3.61	4.12	3.96	0.70	3.88	4.04	3.74	0.64	3.59	3.90	2.773	0.008	0.031
P28	3.91	0.70	3.44	4.38	3.73	0.52	3.54	3.93	3.91	0.71	3.83	3.99	3.82	0.76	3.63	4.01	1.614	0.128	0.018
P29	3.82	0.87	3.23	4.41	3.43	0.63	3.20	3.67	3.90	0.87	3.80	4.00	4.18	0.88	3.97	4.40	3.734	0.001	0.041	P < I.T.D
P30	3.64	0.92	3.02	4.26	3.70	0.60	3.48	3.92	3.75	0.96	3.64	3.86	3.68	1.13	3.41	3.96	0.927	0.484	0.010
P31	3.91	0.83	3.35	4.47	3.83	0.53	3.64	4.03	3.88	0.89	3.78	3.98	3.67	1.09	3.40	3.93	1.070	0.381	0.012
P32	4.36	0.67	3.91	4.82	3.97	0.49	3.78	4.15	4.13	0.52	4.07	4.19	4.26	0.62	4.11	4.41	1.829	0.079	0.020
P33	4.09	0.83	3.53	4.65	3.73	0.58	3.52	3.95	3.89	0.51	3.83	3.95	3.97	0.50	3.85	4.09	2.500	0.015	0.028	P.I < O
P34	4.27	0.79	3.74	4.80	3.83	0.59	3.61	4.05	4.21	0.69	4.13	4.29	4.41	0.68	4.24	4.58	3.011	0.004	0.033	P < T.D
P35	4.45	0.93	3.83	5.08	3.90	0.76	3.62	4.18	4.31	0.78	4.23	4.40	4.39	0.72	4.22	4.57	3.493	0.001	0.038	P < D.O
P36	4.73	0.65	4.29	5.16	4.57	0.73	4.29	4.84	4.74	0.57	4.68	4.81	4.68	0.59	4.54	4.83	2.842	0.006	0.031	I < M.U
P37	4.73	0.47	4.41	5.04	4.63	0.49	4.45	4.82	4.80	0.40	4.75	4.84	4.74	0.44	4.63	4.85	1.395	0.204	0.016
P38	4.64	0.50	4.30	4.98	4.63	0.49	4.45	4.82	4.75	0.45	4.70	4.80	4.62	0.52	4.49	4.75	3.395	0.001	0.037	I < U
P39	4.73	0.47	4.41	5.04	4.63	0.49	4.45	4.82	4.76	0.44	4.71	4.81	4.67	0.56	4.53	4.81	5.091	0.000	0.055	I < T.M.U.D.O
P40	4.73	0.47	4.41	5.04	4.60	0.50	4.41	4.79	4.77	0.42	4.72	4.82	4.74	0.44	4.63	4.85	4.459	0.000	0.048	I < U.M
P41	4.73	0.47	4.41	5.04	4.60	0.50	4.41	4.79	4.74	0.46	4.68	4.79	4.71	0.46	4.60	4.82	4.848	0.000	0.052	I < T.U.M
P42	4.09	0.83	3.53	4.65	4.43	0.73	4.16	4.71	4.52	0.75	4.43	4.60	4.68	0.61	4.53	4.83	3.958	0.000	0.043	O < U.M.T
P43	4.45	0.52	4.10	4.81	4.67	0.48	4.49	4.85	4.70	0.46	4.65	4.76	4.70	0.53	4.57	4.83	4.526	0.000	0.049	O.I < T.U.M
P44	4.36	0.67	3.91	4.82	4.37	0.72	4.10	4.63	4.52	0.66	4.44	4.60	4.62	0.63	4.47	4.78	1.930	0.062	0.021
P45	4.27	0.65	3.84	4.71	4.40	0.72	4.13	4.67	4.57	0.62	4.50	4.64	4.67	0.56	4.53	4.81	3.571	0.001	0.039	I < U.M.T
P46	4.36	0.67	3.91	4.82	4.37	0.72	4.10	4.63	4.39	0.65	4.32	4.47	4.52	0.61	4.36	4.67	2.849	0.006	0.031	I < U.M.T
P47	4.45	0.69	3.99	4.92	4.43	0.73	4.16	4.71	4.57	0.65	4.50	4.65	4.65	0.59	4.51	4.80	1.264	0.266	0.014
P48	4.45	0.52	4.10	4.81	4.47	0.51	4.28	4.66	4.57	0.51	4.51	4.63	4.61	0.60	4.46	4.75	1.618	0.127	0.018
P49	4.09	0.94	3.46	4.73	4.20	0.85	3.88	4.52	4.24	0.79	4.15	4.33	4.45	0.66	4.29	4.62	2.069	0.045	0.023
P50	4.27	1.01	3.59	4.95	4.17	1.12	3.75	4.58	4.27	0.93	4.17	4.38	4.41	0.88	4.19	4.62	1.371	0.215	0.015

Source: Own elaboration.

.

Statistically significant differences appear in all items of Block 2 of the questionnaire (P19-P50), except in items P24-P28, P30-P32, P37, P44, and P47-P50. The dimensions D4 = S24_27 and D5 = S28_31 show no significant differences.

The post hoc tests indicate that the mean of the “Research Staff” group is below the mean of the other groups in the overall average of the questionnaire and in most of the items of this block. However, exceptions are observed in some items, such as P19 and P20, as well as in the dimensions D3 = S19_23 = organizing, D5 = S28_31 = effective communication, and D6 = S32_35 = evaluation, where researchers have a higher score. These differences are visually represented in Figure 3.

Studies suggest that while researchers excel in analytical and methodological skills, they may have fewer opportunities to engage in activities related to decision-making, leadership, and risk-taking, which are key aspects of entrepreneurial competence. As a result, they may feel less confident in areas such as perseverance and problem-solving, which are typically reinforced through professional experience outside of academia. Prior research has emphasized the importance of fostering entrepreneurial skills in research professionals to bridge this gap and enhance their ability to translate scientific knowledge into innovative applications [54,55,56].

However, the fact that research staff scored higher in P19 (identify priorities and take control) and P20 (pay attention to possible unforeseen events that may arise in organizing or planning), as well as in the dimensions of organizing (D3), communication (D5), evaluation (D6), and initiative (D8), suggests that they excel in organizational skills, strategic planning, and critical assessment. These competencies are fundamental in research activities, where meticulous planning, systematic prioritization, and rigorous evaluation are essential for successful project execution.

This structured approach to problem-solving aligns with previous studies, which highlight how researchers develop systematic methods to manage complex tasks, ensuring quality and accuracy in their work [57,58]. However, while these strengths are valuable, they may not be sufficient to fully engage in entrepreneurial initiatives, which often require adaptability, collaboration, and the ability to navigate uncertainty.

For these reasons, it is important to encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and exposure to real-world entrepreneurial challenges, helping researchers translate their technical expertise into innovative and market-driven solutions. By integrating entrepreneurial training into research environments, institutions can foster a more dynamic and impactful scientific community, equipping researchers with the tools needed to bridge the gap between research and application [59,60].

3.4. Analysis of Results According to Teaching Experience

The distribution of the sample by teaching experience is as follows: the 0–5 years group represents 18.94% of participants, the 6–15 years group represents 39%, the 16–25 years group represents 30.5%, and the group with more than 25 years of teaching experience represents 11.56% of the respondents.

To determine whether there are significant differences in the results of the questionnaire according to teaching experience, an ANOVA analysis was carried out for independent samples. The results of this analysis are presented in

Table 5. ANOVA for independent samples according to teaching experience by the participants.

Item	P = 0–5 Years				S = 6–15 Years				T = 16–25 Years				C = Over 25 Years
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P19	4.04	0.56	4.04	4.05	3.92	0.55	3.92	3.92	4.00	0.60	4.00	4.01	4.47	0.58	4.47	4.48	16.516	0.000	0.074	S.T.P < C
P20	3.98	0.74	3.98	3.99	3.75	0.68	3.75	3.76	3.95	0.76	3.94	3.95	4.47	0.60	4.47	4.48	17.641	0.000	0.079	S < T.P < C
P21	4.10	0.44	4.10	4.10	4.01	0.22	4.00	4.01	3.96	0.42	3.96	3.96	4.31	0.49	4.30	4.31	16.189	0.000	0.073	T.S < P < C
P22	4.29	0.54	4.29	4.29	3.98	0.57	3.98	3.99	4.14	0.63	4.14	4.14	4.47	0.55	4.47	4.48	14.367	0.000	0.065	S < T < P.C
P23	4.19	0.54	4.18	4.19	4.12	0.67	4.12	4.12	4.23	0.68	4.22	4.23	4.69	0.49	4.69	4.70	14.930	0.000	0.067	S.P.T < C
P24	3.97	0.73	3.97	3.98	3.56	0.76	3.55	3.56	3.95	0.80	3.94	3.95	4.17	0.78	4.16	4.17	15.320	0.000	0.069	S < T.P.C
P25	4.25	0.76	4.24	4.25	3.78	0.80	3.78	3.78	4.15	0.77	4.15	4.16	4.39	0.52	4.39	4.39	16.616	0.000	0.075	S < T.P.C
P26	4.00	0.60	4.00	4.00	3.99	0.61	3.99	4.00	4.09	0.61	4.08	4.09	4.36	0.51	4.36	4.36	7.235	0.000	0.034	S.P.T < C
P27	3.86	0.55	3.86	3.87	3.73	0.75	3.72	3.73	3.99	0.68	3.99	3.99	4.36	0.51	4.36	4.36	17.081	0.000	0.076	S < P.T < C
P28	4.00	0.62	4.00	4.00	3.67	0.70	3.67	3.67	3.98	0.72	3.98	3.98	4.33	0.55	4.33	4.34	18.609	0.000	0.083	S < T.P < C
P29	3.91	0.78	3.90	3.91	3.96	0.93	3.96	3.97	3.93	0.86	3.93	3.93	4.06	0.80	4.05	4.06	0.517	0.671	0.002
P30	3.99	0.78	3.99	4.00	3.43	1.04	3.43	3.44	3.88	0.90	3.87	3.88	4.17	0.78	4.16	4.17	16.419	0.000	0.074	S < T.P.C
P31	3.99	0.72	3.99	4.00	3.57	1.03	3.56	3.57	3.97	0.84	3.96	3.97	4.36	0.51	4.36	4.36	17.549	0.000	0.078	S < T.P < C
P32	4.03	0.51	4.02	4.03	4.28	0.51	4.28	4.28	4.07	0.57	4.07	4.08	4.25	0.49	4.25	4.25	8.272	0.000	0.039	P.T < C.S
P33	3.89	0.53	3.89	3.89	3.81	0.49	3.81	3.81	3.89	0.56	3.89	3.90	4.25	0.52	4.25	4.25	12.276	0.000	0.056	S.P.T < C
P34	4.13	0.68	4.12	4.13	4.22	0.76	4.21	4.22	4.19	0.69	4.19	4.19	4.49	0.55	4.48	4.49	4.302	0.005	0.020	P.T.S < C
P35	4.13	0.73	4.12	4.13	4.33	0.83	4.32	4.33	4.25	0.78	4.24	4.25	4.68	0.55	4.68	4.68	8.379	0.000	0.039	P.T.S < C
P36	4.57	0.72	4.56	4.57	4.73	0.52	4.72	4.73	4.68	0.66	4.68	4.69	4.88	0.37	4.87	4.88	4.016	0.008	0.019	P < C
P37	4.75	0.44	4.74	4.75	4.75	0.43	4.75	4.75	4.77	0.42	4.76	4.77	4.89	0.31	4.89	4.89	2.251	0.081	0.011
P38	4.58	0.64	4.58	4.59	4.70	0.49	4.70	4.70	4.67	0.48	4.67	4.67	4.86	0.35	4.86	4.86	4.561	0.004	0.022	P.T < C
P39	4.53	0.67	4.53	4.54	4.72	0.50	4.71	4.72	4.73	0.46	4.73	4.73	4.88	0.33	4.87	4.88	7.426	0.000	0.035	P < S.T.C
P40	4.54	0.51	4.54	4.55	4.86	0.35	4.86	4.86	4.74	0.44	4.73	4.74	4.79	0.41	4.79	4.79	13.526	0.000	0.062	P < T.C < S
P41	4.50	0.58	4.50	4.50	4.84	0.36	4.84	4.84	4.70	0.47	4.70	4.71	4.78	0.42	4.77	4.78	13.829	0.000	0.063	P < T < S.C
P42	4.51	0.74	4.50	4.51	4.47	0.77	4.47	4.48	4.57	0.70	4.57	4.57	4.36	0.82	4.36	4.37	1.666	0.173	0.008
P43	4.60	0.54	4.60	4.60	4.76	0.44	4.76	4.76	4.68	0.47	4.68	4.69	4.54	0.50	4.54	4.55	4.648	0.003	0.022	C.P < S
P44	4.43	0.74	4.43	4.44	4.54	0.59	4.53	4.54	4.49	0.71	4.49	4.50	4.61	0.54	4.61	4.62	1.233	0.297	0.006
P45	4.47	0.72	4.47	4.48	4.58	0.55	4.58	4.58	4.55	0.68	4.55	4.55	4.51	0.53	4.51	4.52	0.716	0.543	0.003
P46	4.35	0.76	4.34	4.35	4.44	0.58	4.44	4.44	4.38	0.69	4.38	4.38	4.40	0.54	4.40	4.41	0.575	0.632	0.003
P47	4.55	0.71	4.55	4.55	4.43	0.78	4.43	4.44	4.62	0.60	4.61	4.62	4.65	0.50	4.65	4.66	3.314	0.020	0.016	S < T
P48	4.47	0.67	4.47	4.48	4.56	0.54	4.56	4.57	4.60	0.52	4.59	4.60	4.49	0.53	4.48	4.49	1.637	0.180	0.008
P49	4.41	0.65	4.40	4.41	4.32	0.74	4.31	4.32	4.26	0.80	4.26	4.26	4.04	0.73	4.04	4.05	3.744	0.011	0.018	C < P
P50	4.27	0.95	4.27	4.28	4.14	1.10	4.13	4.14	4.31	0.91	4.31	4.31	4.40	0.62	4.40	4.41	1.810	0.144	0.009

Source: Own elaboration.

.

Statistically significant differences were found in items P19-P28, P30-P36, P38-P41, P43, P47, and P49. Differences were also observed in all dimensions, except in D9 = S43_46 and D10 = S47_50.

Post hoc tests indicated that the 0–5 year teaching experience group showed a lower mean compared to the other groups in the overall mean of the questionnaire, as well as in items P19, P23, P26, P29, P32-P46, P48, and P50 and in dimensions D6 = S32_35 = evaluation, D7 = S36_39 = team coordination, D8 = S40_42 = initiative, D9 = S43_46 = independence and innovation, and D10 = S47_50 = motivation. These differences are visually represented in Figure 4.

These findings suggest that early-career educators may struggle with developing entrepreneurial competencies, particularly in evaluation, team coordination, initiative, independence, innovation, and motivation. While teaching fosters adaptability, interpersonal communication, and organizational skills, less experienced teachers often lack exposure to real-world entrepreneurial challenges, which can limit their confidence in these areas. Research suggests that educators with entrepreneurial experience are more effective in teaching entrepreneurship, as practical insights help them cultivate these competencies in students. This implies that less experienced teachers may require further training and mentorship to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and entrepreneurial practice [61,62,63].

However, despite these challenges, less experienced teachers demonstrated strengths in foundational organizational and communication skills. In fact, in certain areas, their scores were comparable to or even higher than those of more experienced teachers. No significant differences were found in areas such as anticipating unforeseen events (P20), preparing necessary materials (P21), meeting deadlines (P22), maintaining a proactive vision (P24), inspiring others (P25), managing task changes (P27), exchanging information effectively (P28), providing accurate knowledge (P30), communicating information (P31), achieving agreements (P47), and influencing others through communication (P49).

While these foundational skills are essential for effective teaching, they may not be sufficient for fostering an entrepreneurial mindset in educators. Some entrepreneurial competencies, such as initiative and problem-solving, require hands-on experience, exposure to complex decision-making, and the ability to navigate uncertainty. Therefore, professional development, mentorship, and experiential learning opportunities could help bridge this gap, equipping early-career teachers with the necessary tools to strengthen their entrepreneurial abilities and foster these skills in their students [64,65].

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Despite limited teacher training in entrepreneurship [66], the results indicate that education professionals perceive themselves as capable of facing the challenges associated with entrepreneurial competence. This suggests that they have developed their skills through experience, teaching practice, or the educational context in which they work. However, their self-perception varies according to factors such as sex, age, position held in the center, and teaching experience.

In relation to sex, it has been observed that women tend to show greater confidence in their ability to develop entrepreneurial competence. However, men perceive themselves as more prepared to take on responsibilities and fulfill commitments, suggesting differences in the way men (vs. women) value their preparation in this area. In addition, women’s slight superiority in overall scores could be linked to their preference for educational- or health-oriented entrepreneurial approaches, while men show a tendency toward more technological approaches [67]. These differences may be influenced by gender roles and self-assessment tendencies rather than actual competence gaps. Women may align with collaborative and community-based entrepreneurship, while men might emphasize leadership and risk-taking [68].

In relation to age, younger participants (25 years or less) had significantly lower scores compared to older age groups in almost all dimensions of the questionnaire. This result could be related to less experience in education. However, in dimension D3 = S19_23 = organizing, no significant differences were found. This finding supports the notion that, while many entrepreneurial skills are honed with experience, certain competencies (such as organizing ability) can be developed early through academic and extracurricular activities. Furthermore, the lower self-perception of entrepreneurial competence observed in younger participants may not reflect a lack of ability, but rather a limited exposure to opportunities for leadership, decision-making, and risk-taking. This suggests that younger individuals may simply have fewer chances to apply and showcase these skills, rather than lacking the potential to develop them [48,49,50].

In relation to the position held in the center, teachers not in leadership roles had lower scores in most of the dimensions of the questionnaire, except for the items related to identifying priorities and managing contingencies. This pattern reinforces the idea that professional experience and position in the school have a significant impact on teachers’ ability to display entrepreneurial competence. In particular, the differences observed in the Research Staff group can be explained by the different responsibilities inherent to their role, which focus more on research than on educational management [69]. This organizational hierarchy could influence the perception and practice of entrepreneurship education.

Lower scores among teachers who do not hold leadership positions may be due to fewer opportunities for decision-making, rather than lower competence. Leadership roles naturally involve strategic planning and resource management, which can enhance self-perception of entrepreneurial skills [70]. Similarly, research staff may focus more on analytical tasks, making some dimensions of entrepreneurial competence less central to their role.

Finally, teachers with less experience (0–5 years) tend to have a lower ability to organize, communicate, and exercise leadership compared to those with more professional experience, which underlines the importance of teaching experience in the development of entrepreneurial competence. In this sense, collaboration and teamwork within the educational environment can play a key role in the acquisition and strengthening of these skills. At present, it is encouraging to observe an increase in coordinated teaching experiences aimed at the development of interdisciplinary work [71]. However, divisions and conflicts persist within some departments and teaching teams, which can hinder effective collaboration [72]. Teachers with less professional experience may still be developing confidence in their entrepreneurial skills, despite being more open to innovation. Structural barriers in educational institutions, such as limited resources, hierarchical structures, and lack of cross-departmental communication, can impede the development of these competencies [45,73].

These challenges underscore the need to design and implement stronger institutional strategies that promote cooperative work environments and facilitate the exchange of knowledge and resources among educators. Addressing these barriers is essential to fostering an entrepreneurial mindset within educational settings and ensuring the successful implementation of interdisciplinary initiatives [74,75].

From a broader perspective, entrepreneurial competence is not only a tool for improving educational methodologies but also a driver of sustainable social transformation. Teachers who develop this competence are better equipped to implement pedagogical innovations that address contemporary global challenges, such as social inequality, environmental responsibility, and economic adaptability. By fostering an entrepreneurial mindset in education, schools and universities can contribute to a more resilient and forward-thinking society, where learning is not only about acquiring knowledge but also about generating impact [16,17].

Institutional policies play a significant role in shaping the development of entrepreneurial skills within educational environments, alongside individual efforts. Well-crafted institutional strategies that prioritize innovation, sustainability, and entrepreneurship help cultivate an ecosystem where these competencies thrive among both educators and students. For instance, institutions can introduce curricular reforms that integrate entrepreneurship and sustainability across various disciplines, encouraging students to collaborate on proposing practical solutions to global challenges. Additionally, fostering partnerships with industries and startup ecosystems can offer students hands-on projects, mentorship opportunities, and resources, fostering innovative thinking and the development of essential entrepreneurial skills [10,76,77].

On the other hand, a lack of support or bureaucratic resistance to change can stifle entrepreneurial initiatives, making it difficult for educators to implement the kind of transformative education needed to address sustainability challenges. Institutions must therefore avoid overly rigid administrative structures that hinder the development of interdisciplinary programs and provide adequate funding for the development of innovative sustainability projects. It is also crucial to support the creation of spaces for collaboration and knowledge exchange among students and faculty, enabling the cross-pollination of ideas that can lead to sustainable entrepreneurial solutions [78].

Despite its contributions, this study has certain limitations. First, its cross-sectional design restricts the ability to establish causal relationships between variables. Longitudinal studies would provide a deeper understanding of how teachers’ perceptions of their own entrepreneurial competence evolve over time, particularly in response to professional experience, targeted training programs, and changes in educational policies. Monitoring these perceptions over extended periods could help identify trends in confidence development and determine the key factors that most effectively strengthen teachers’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy.

Second, the reliance on self-reported perceptions may introduce bias, as individuals might overestimate or underestimate their abilities due to personal confidence levels, professional expectations, or social desirability effects. Future research should incorporate objective performance assessments, behavioral observations, and qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews and focus groups to gain richer and more nuanced insights into how teachers perceive and apply entrepreneurial competence in their professional practice.

In this context, an interesting avenue for future research would be to explore the impact of sex, age, and teaching experience on collaborative work within teaching teams and how this diversity influences the development of entrepreneurial projects in the classroom. Analyzing the ways in which different teacher profiles interact (whether fostering or limiting entrepreneurial initiatives) could provide valuable insights into optimizing teamwork dynamics and improving the management of entrepreneurship within educational settings [27].

Finally, another relevant aspect for future research would be the evaluation of current educational policies in relation to the promotion of entrepreneurial competence, both nationally and internationally. It would be valuable to analyze how public policies and government initiatives are supporting the development of entrepreneurial competence in teachers and to what extent the strategies implemented are aligned with the needs of the current educational environment.