**1. Introduction**

Entrepreneurship is currently regarded as a solution for socio-economic development given the growth of new business worldwide [1]. However, the entrepreneurial intention (EI) of university students has steadily increased but has not yet reached the levels desirable to solve the problem of youth unemployment. This is the reason why regions with the highest rates of unemployment have been experiencing an increase in entrepreneurs in recent years, particularly in the case of the south of Spain [2,3]. Entrepreneurship is considered a transversal competence aimed at increasing employability and adaptability to the job market [4,5]. This is the reason why the reduction of unemployment rates and effective policies in business creation are a priority which cannot be left solely up to governments. In this regard, universities are assuming responsibilities and seeking to involve their multiple stakeholders, in line with their social commitment to some extent [6]. In recent years, youth unemployment has become a major topic that has drawn the attention of policymakers [7] and searching for a solution requires a shift to active employment policies, training, and access to the labour market. Entrepreneurial education programmes are proposed to enhance it and, although this statement is supported by numerous research studies [8–10], further analysis is required to know how training in entrepreneurial competences influences recruitment. There is a consensus that entrepreneurial intention is a personal orientation which might lead to venture creations but measuring this question remains a challenge [6,10], along with tracing precisely how entrepreneurial intention

results in businesses set up by people graduating from higher education [11]. Such predisposition could lead to owning a business or becoming self-employed or be the basis for facing professional life with a set of skills related to entrepreneurship. Acquisition of entrepreneurial competences means the ability to recognize and act on opportunities, take initiative, persuade, argue and communicate and apart from that, it implies being able to exploit an opportunity in a specific context, including its management and evaluation [12] Based on this description, being entrepreneurially competent is appreciated in paid employment and self-employed economic activities [13,14].

It seems obvious that students need opportunities to practice what they are learning and obtain experience in the kinds of tasks where they are expected to demonstrate competence in their professional life [15–18]. Therefore, the educational system is facing the challenge of designing activities aimed at achieving higher quality in student learning, overcoming the traditional paradigm at the university, more focusing on the transmission of knowledge and application of procedures [19]. Thus, universities strive to improve employability for their graduates by embedding key competences, which include entrepreneurial skills in higher education curricula [20]. Given the above, the aim of the study is to test the effectiveness of a set of tools designed to improve entrepreneurial competences and compare their results. Fayolle [21] (p. 696) points out that few studies set out to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of different teaching methods used. Overall, there are two main trends: behaviourism and constructivism. Behaviourism assumes learning is primarily the passive transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the student, while constructivism assumes that learning involves actively participating in the construction of new understanding [22] (p. 280). Both have been widely discussed in the literature [22], but there is less evidence about tools, activities and pedagogies associated with them. Specifically, Bechard and Grégoire [23] identified three types of teaching models in higher education: the supply model, the demand model and the competency model, an additionally the hybrid teaching models as a result of their combination. Some kinds of activities are associated with each one. The supply model promotes pedagogical methods leading to transmission and reproduction of knowledge and the application of procedures. The demand model uses activities involving exploration, discussion and experimentation. Finally, the competence model focuses on pedagogical methods that highlight active problem-solving in real-life situations. According to the authors "teaching is conceived as a strategic intervention to allow for—and influence—how students organize the resources at their disposal (e.g., knowledge, abilities) into competences that can be mobilized for action" [23] (pp. 115–116). In particular, this approach used to be related to the acquisition of competences as it seems more suitable for matching graduates' professional profiles to labour market requirements employability [5,6,20].

According to Kolvereid [24], Rae [16], and Sewell and Dacre Pool [20] training competences can be a key factor for business creation but also for employability and, this is the issue on which this paper is built. Entrepreneurial competences as an indicator of being better prepared to face the labour market and professional development are the core of this research. Likewise, an improvement of employability built out of entrepreneurial competences is a new insight in this field.

In this context, a collaborative model in which stakeholders can play a key role could enhance competency acquisition. However, these models have still not become widespread in the educational environment and, they could be a valuable source of innovation and modernisation for universities, especially in combination with entrepreneurship [25]. Nor research has focused enough effort on this line of investigation and currently, there are still few studies with this approach [21] the Open Innovation (OI) approach is beginning to be introduced in order to involve students, lecturers, graduates and companies in decision making. Consequently, motivation and learning and professional outcomes can be improved [26]. This issue has barely been applied in previous literature despite being an opportunity for higher education [27]. Thus, the introduction of OI in this research is a shift from the traditional approach in this field.

On the basis of the above, this research work seeks to respond to three main questions. The first being, can entrepreneurial competences adapt the university students' profile for facing labour market requirements better? The second, what design (contents and methodology) of training activities improve students' skills? The last, what effects do Open Innovation practices have in training of skills in higher education?

This paper begins with a review of the existing literature focused on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) relating to entrepreneurial intention and reviewing the most mentioned entrepreneurial competences. Both are the basis for designing different training tools and, consequently, they are the focus of the final analysis [28,29]. Secondly, the methodology used is discussed and although quantitative descriptives are included, this research work is developed supported by a qualitative technique. On the one hand, the measurement of the entrepreneurial intention of 329 students from a public Spanish university before and after student participation in training activities and on the other hand, three focus groups in which participating students, lecturers, and entrepreneurs with the support of the Atlas.ti. This choice allows the aforementioned objectives to be reached and the limitations mentioned in the literature to be overcome by focussing on a specific case of students on different degree courses. Thirdly, the most important results of the investigation are presented. The results obtained have contributed to show an improvement in entrepreneurial competences when academic knowledge and passive learning is not the core and the designed activities are based on interaction and, furthermore, when the participants themselves feel more personally engaged and an integral part of the decision-making process. Additionally, the main contribution is a reflection based on a case of study that offers a framework with keys of philosophical and didactical dimensions of education programs focused on entrepreneurial competences. The paper ends with the main conclusions and their implications in the field of entrepreneurship.

### **2. Literature Review**

A proper plan for fighting unemployment should include entrepreneurship as a keystone [7,30]. Governments all over the world are, thus, focused on promoting entrepreneurship. Direct effect on employment, innovation, and growth of the nation is widely shown in previous literature [31–33]. However, as criticised by Goddard and Vallance [34], and Fuster [35], further evidence is needed to show the direct effect and to understand the influence of the environment on these relationships. Policies, funds, grants, and educational programs are some of the facilities executed to support economic sustainability [36,37]. That is, actions and practices aim to support long-term economic goals without having a negative impact on social and environmental aspects. In any case, entrepreneurship should not only be considered as business creation, but would also improve employability and adaptability to the job market [1,5]. Both positive effects draw from entrepreneurship as a transversal competence and, therefore, its training at different degree levels allows students to demonstrate a more adapted profile to labour market requirements. Universities come into the picture for this reason and they have been taking on fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. The incorporation of entrepreneurship in higher education programmes completes the educational and research role of these institutions and fulfils a social role [10,26,38]. Moreover, recent literature suggests that entrepreneurial education programmes improve the ability to discover and exploit opportunities and enhance entrepreneurial intentions [39]. Despite the fact that relationships between entrepreneurial education programme and entrepreneurial intention are shown in several research papers [40–42] there is equivocal evidence. For example, Souitaris et al. [39] found no significant relationship and other studies even suggest an inverse relationship [43,44]. Curiously, some explanations point out that personal abilities and increased awareness of the challenge inherent in starting a business are critical [43]. In this sense, education plays a prominent role in gaining knowledge and competences as well, though further empirically rooted research is needed into what and how entrepreneurial education programmes impact on both [45,46]. This research paper focuses on analysing how training activities affect entrepreneurial intention (EI) and competence profile. Consequently, entrepreneurship is typically studied in degrees linked to the economy and business, to a lesser extent linked with engineering and is practically non-existent in Humanities Degrees. By contrast, there are very few studies comparing groups from

different knowledge areas [41,42]. All of those included in this study are precisely an innovation with respect to previous research papers.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) by Ajzen [47] supports the analysis in this study. This theoretical framework is widely used in previous literature to approach entrepreneurial intention [9,48–51]. Its robustness becomes an appropriate model to explain the predisposition and intention to set up a business [24,52,53] especially if the focus is on pedagogical processes and learning contexts [9,54,55]. This framing considers three issues: (1) Personal Attitudes, (2) Subjective Norms, and (3) Perceived Behavioural Control, and the result of their interaction has a direct effect on entrepreneurial intention. Although this research paper focuses on these elements, it is undeniable that attitudes are not just a product of cognitive factors. However, external factors should be borne in mind when setting up a business [56]. On the other hand, according to Krueger et al. [54], and based on models by Shapero and Sokol [57], and Ajzen [47], internal traits and external aspects (socio-cultural factors) could be moderated by the learning process and the entrepreneurial competences could be improved as a consequence of this [29]. A degree of consensus now exists concerning entrepreneurial personal traits and skills in literature. As a result of this, creativity, risk-taking, proactivity as an entrepreneur in the internal dimension, and entrepreneurship image in the external dimension are highlighted. Mitchelmore and Rowley [28] emphasized the relevance of establishing an agenda for future research and experiments in relation to entrepreneurial competences and their implications on economic and social development. With this in mind, several research papers [14,29,43,58–61] Morris et al., [62] analyse how the aforementioned entrepreneurial competences have influenced entrepreneurship.

Finally, it should be emphasized that this research work overcomes the gap referred to in the literature. The lack of common knowledge and evidence about didactical, pedagogical dimensions, and performance of entrepreneurial education and teaching [19,21]. Even less attention was paid to the competence-based approach.

To address these questions, we have formulated a series of working hypotheses:

**Hypothesis 1.1:** *There is a crucial relationship between creativity, risk aversion and proactivity and entrepreneurial intention.*

**Hypothesis 1.2:** *A link exists between entrepreneurial competences: creativity, risk aversion and proactivity and the improvement of perceived employability.*

**Hypothesis 2:** *Entrepreneurial intention (EI) depends on the following factors:*

H2.1. Creativity (C) H2.2. Risk aversion (RA) H2.3. Proactivity

**Hypothesis 3:** *The improvement in perceived employability maintains a dependence relation on the following factors:*

H3.1. Creativity (C) H3.2. Risk aversion (RA) H3.3. Proactivity

The hypothesis related to entrepreneurial intention and entrepreneurial competences are on the lines of that mooted by research works like. This issue has been widely discussed in general terms by Morris et al. [62] and Arranz et al. [63]. Both reflect and provide some evidence over the potential of a competence-based approach on entrepreneurship education. Likewise, there are numerous research papers that pay attention to how competences affect to entrepreneurial intention [4,14], while other research works specifically adjust their focus on entrepreneurial competences [10,29,43]. Even, some authors adjust their fieldwork to one or a group of entrepreneurial competences. For example, Crant [58] and Uy et al. [60] deepened in proactivity, while Sarri et al. [59] designed their study highlighting creativity and innovation as main entrepreneurial competences. In this case, entrepreneurial competences more referred in previous literature are the basis of the hypothesis. Therefore, the insights provided are the result of this different vision in the entrepreneurship field.

By contrast, hypothesis 1.2 and 3 focused on employability and entrepreneurial competences provide insight from its own approach regarding previous literature. It is possible to find out two types of studies. On one side, those focused on the contribution of competences–not only entrepreneurial competences–in employability [18]. On the other hand, research works as Machin and McNally [6], Dacre Pool and Sewell [64], but both are mainly series of reflections in which some proposals for researchers and policymakers can support their decisions. Thus, the scarcity of reliable, complete and up-to-date evidence on this issue (entrepreneurial competences and employability) is identified as the source of main insights in this study.

#### *Open Innovation in Higher Education*

The discussion of what form Higher Education should take to generate knowledge and provide professional skills remains open. UNESCO [17] (p. 3) points out that "education tailored to current need implies transcending academic knowledge and passing from the student's passive learning to a conception where learning is interaction and it is built among all". Consequently, universities try to design activities aimed at achieving higher quality in student learning, overcoming the traditional paradigm. In this scenario, Open Innovation (OI) introduces a new perspective. This paradigm means listening to all stakeholders as a source of knowledge and, consequently as a resource of innovation and competitive advantage. Therefore, OI develops positive dynamics in self-empowerment and allows the stakeholders (mainly, students, lecturers, decision-makers in universities, and entrepreneurs) to generate confidence in themselves and participate actively in building a modern and engaging image of the university. Chesbrough [65] introduced the concept in 2003 and, since then, it has been analysed in different contexts, but particularly the educational environment is an issue where a great deal of further development is still needed. In recent years, the benefits of embedding an openness philosophy in learning based on collaborative knowledge have been widely discussed in the literature [25], but not yet on the desired scale. Social innovation in education is possible due to a collaborative model [66]. In this sense, although recent empirical reviews [45] suggest a positive relationship between participating in an entrepreneurial education programme and developing entrepreneurial intentions, currently there is still insufficient evidence to support or refute this statement. OI in the industrial sector has drawn more attention than in other sectors, such as services [67]. This is particularly striking in the educational environment [26]. Therefore, the lack of empirical evidence regarding innovation and the educational institution is the reason for this research and is the main new aspect. Moreover, whether the numerous benefits linked to OI [68] are transferable to the educational environment can be tested. The implementation of OI can also benefit organisations [69] and higher education institutions can thus find an opportunity to engage with stakeholders, especially with students, and to portray a positive image to society, exactly as stated in the three focus groups targeted in this research work. Currently, the shortage of empirical evidence obtained so far in the study of OI from this perspective is a deviation from customary practice in this field. Chesbrough [65] claims that sustaining performance in an increasingly complex world requires confidence in this paradigm. This novel instrument is expected to increase in the educational environment, and it will pose a growing challenge in the coming years. It seems a logical step, as is actually happening in other fields.

In the field of Open Innovation, the qualitative techniques are mostly used [67] because it is especially suitable to deepen these assessments, the extent, scope and nature of these practices [27]. For this reason, the Open Innovation approach in this study, is analysed through qualitative techniques.

#### **3. Method**

#### *3.1. Measures and Instrument*

The entrepreneurial intention, before participation in activities for entrepreneurial training, is measured using a questionnaire modelled on the aforementioned Theory of Planned Behaviour [47]. Its strength as a framework in the development of research in this field, as well as its explanatory capacity according to the literature reviewed, justifies this choice. The questionnaire was divided into four blocks: I. Personal Attitudes (PA) consisting of five items, II. Subjective Norms (SN) consisting of three items, III. Perceived Behavioural Control (PBC) with six items, and IV. Entrepreneurial Intention (EI), measured with another five items. A scale of seven points (Likert scale), with 1 expressing the strongest disagreement and 7 the highest level of agreement is used to analyse each one of them.

Once the different training activities have been completed, a combination of a quantitative technique and qualitative technique is made. The purpose of this choice is to gain a better understanding of connections or contradictions between qualitative and quantitative data, which can provide opportunities for participants to have a strong voice and share their experiences across the research process.

The carrying out of this study necessitates a mixed-method approach, the novelty of the analysed field and the research questions raised require this type of method due to their complex nature [70,71]. The quantitative methodology was useful to test Entrepreneurial Intention before and after implementing four types of activities for training entrepreneurial competences as well as the improvement of employability perceived by students. Secondly, the qualitative methodology based on three focus groups was used to design the training competences, approach in understanding how interactions occur and the specific contributions of stakeholders. Finally, we used the concurrent triangulation strategy to cross-validate the two databases [70,72]. Specifically, Cai [71] highlights that the general purpose for conducing qualitative and qualitative method in higher education is to gain a fuller understanding. Papadimitriou, Ivankova, and Hurtado [73] (p. 2) "point that integration of methods helps ensure more rigorous studies and better transferability of the generated conclusions". It has tended to become an excellent option to approach the research topic and has increased in higher education. This study utilized a sequential explanatory design [74] consisting of two phases. Thus, the data from the focus groups could help explain the quantitative results provided by regression analysis for the purpose of complementarity [75]. The data were connected, and the quantitative phase helped inform the qualitative phase. The results were connected to gain a better understanding of the findings from both phases. Consequently, firstly a regression analysis supported in a questionnaire designed to show entrepreneurial competences related to entrepreneurial intention and the improvement of perceived employability is applied. Secondly, three focus groups, one for the lecturers involved and two more for students, is organised to evaluate which tools and resources to train competences related to entrepreneurship are better. The choice of regression and focus group deserves further explanation. In one side, a multivariate analysis technique: linear regression is used because it allows testing the influence and the relationships between main issues [76]. In this case: entrepreneurial intention and employability. This type of analysis is suitable for explaining the extent to how these variables are connected with training of entrepreneurial competences, as well as its predictive ability. On the other hand, focus groups are viewed as the proper qualitative technique due to the exploratory nature of the study and it is a way to identify and report the feelings of a heterogeneous group. In discussion situations, some understanding of issues, concerns and experiences of the people involved is gained [77]. As a result of this, the regression analysis applied in combination with focus group allows identifying omitted variables, unobservable factors that only can be identified through a qualitative approach. Both works perfectly together, one to test quantitatively the proposal model of relationships and the other to contrast based on deepener qualitative details. According to Newman et al. [78], this methodological choice serves to generate new knowledge and test new ideas.

The design of the questionnaire includes five blocks. The first three: creativity, risk aversion, proactivity corresponding to the entrepreneurial internal dimension [14,58–60,79], and entrepreneurship

image is the main item regarding the external dimension, [61] and, finally, the five items for measuring entrepreneurial intention in TPB model are included again. Finally, an item about the improvement of employability is introduced to measure it in connection with entrepreneurial competences. The same scale of seven points is followed.

### *3.2. Data Collection*

The public university in southern Spain chosen represents a valid approach to developing the study because it has been striving to showcase entrepreneurship as professional development for the last two decades. Moreover, this university offers a complete ecosystem with programmes to enhance entrepreneurial spirit, incubators, accelerators, contest of business creation, challenges with enterprise participation, events and forums, mentoring programmes, etc. It should be emphasized that the chosen university belongs to a region with the largest population in Spain [80] and it is mentioned as a key knowledge agent and one of the strengths of the R and D system together with the Technological Park and the Innovation Centres. Initially, it can represent higher education institutions and be the first case of study in this field. Additionally, it is a medium-sized university that it can be regarded as just representative with regard to public higher education, especially in Spain.

The fieldwork lasted four weeks and it was geared towards 329 students from any degree and from different centres belonging to a Spanish public university. The distribution of the sample by degree is in line with the number of students in each area of knowledge at the University of Malaga. They participated at the same time in the programme. The criterion for choosing these students was that they were on university degrees which included specific courses in business creation. In any event, special emphasis has been placed on finding an equal representation of Business and Management, and Non-Business and Management. As a result of this, the type of random selection has been cluster sampling. The entrepreneurial intention from the TPB Model and entrepreneurial competences linked to entrepreneurial intention were measured in the same students before and after their participation in four types of activities for training competences: role play, team building, solving real case studies with an entrepreneur, and, finally, a hackathon. They were all based on problem-solving linked to entrepreneurship. It must be pointed out that these activities were linked with entrepreneurial intention, but it is still not sufficiently analysed from the perspective of employability despite valuable related competences. This is precisely why the measurement of the improvement of employability is introduced in the questionnaire. This item, the students' personal evaluation is only answered after the participation in the training activities. This is one of the main limitation that will be pointed out in the final section, but it is simply intended to highlight the potential of training entrepreneurial competences on their self-confidence. However, the qualitative approach provides additional details about employability introducing the point of view of lecturers and entrepreneurs.

Then, there is a more detailed explanation of each activity in order to understand the underpinning concept of the initiative better. Moreover, Table 1 provides detailed information about the methodology and the pedagogy of each learning tool: duration, technical and human resources, and spaces, etc.


• **Role Playing.** This is a technique that allows students to explore realistic situations by interacting with other people in a managed way in order to develop experience and trial different strategies in a supported environment. It is a way of working through a situation, a scenario, or a problem by assuming roles and practicing what to say and do in a safe setting.


**Table 1.** Technical details of training activities.

In order to develop the different activities according to a standard and providing the lectures with support to implement and manage, a common guide was elaborated to make it easier and make the subsequent comparison possible.

Nevertheless, a fair distribution between students in each kind of activity was achieved, 80 students participated in team building, 80 in the Hackathon, 84 in Practical Cases, and 85 were involved in role playing. Additionally, three focus groups were carried out with the lecturers, an entrepreneur and students involved in order to evaluate which tools and resources for training entrepreneurial related competences entrepreneurship were better.

The participation was voluntary, but participants had to commit to the whole programme.

The sample consisted of 329 students, in order to maintain levels of statistical confidence (95%) and a statistically recommended margin of error (5%). Regarding the focus groups, a total of 24 participants took part in them (seven lecturers, an entrepreneur, and 16 students). When applying this technique, five persons who had not participated in the entrepreneurial training activities and one of the entrepreneurs involved in the case studies were included to improve the quality of the discussion. A focus group guideline was used to ensure it was implemented correctly.

#### *3.3. Validity and Reliability*

The literature reviewed already guaranteed the validity of the questionnaire, but in addition, the internal consistency of both questionnaires was validated as research instruments by applying Cronbach's alpha for all the factors forming each block, exceeding the reference values by 0.92 and 0.89, respectively. In addition, the confidence coefficient for the different dimensions on which the questionnaires are structured was checked and obtained results in the range of over 0.8 and 0.7, respectively. Entrepreneurial intention is the variable which depends on the three other dimensions in both. These three are independent and have a direct influence on the levels of entrepreneurship orientation among the students at Malaga University. Meanwhile, entrepreneurial intention and employability are analysed as a dependent variable of training/acquisition of entrepreneurial competences. In the same way, an analysis of data reliability and trustworthiness that was performed previously demonstrated that all measurement scales exceeded the 0.7 threshold for Cronbach's α in all blocks, both jointly and separately, therefore demonstrating a satisfactory internal validity.

### *3.4. Regression Analysis*

Empirical testing in the field of entrepreneurship has been traditionally performed by means of quantitative techniques [9], this is the reason why qualitative analysis has a greater role in this study. Anyway, a regression analysis leads to focus groups. Regression analysis was chosen due to its versatility in identifying models of behaviour of the independent variables (predictors) and the criterion variable [76]. Previous literature has amply demonstrated dependence relation between entrepreneurial intentions with all other variables [40,81,82]. Therefore, new insights are pursued applying regression analysis linking entrepreneurial intention and improvement of employability with entrepreneurial competences. The technique was performed twice. In both applications, entrepreneurial competences remain as the independent/predictor variables (creativity, risk aversion, proactivity) and the dependent variable changing. Firstly, entrepreneurial intention related to entrepreneurial competences and, finally, the dependent variable is the improvement of employment perceived by students after their participation in the proposed activities. To increase the rigor of the application of the regression analysis, this is performed by using the default method, which consists of entering all the proposed variables into the model. The second phase involves the use of the backward regression method, which consists of introducing all the variables in the equation and then excluding sequentially those with smaller partial correlations. This procedure identifies large variances and the observations associated with small variances, determining which items have a minor impact [76]. All data analysis was performed using SPSS 20.

#### *3.5. The Basis of Qualitative Analysis*

Due to the descriptive and observational nature of the study, the qualitative analysis carries far more weight. The gathered data could support decision-making processes when designing entrepreneurship programmes and defining policies to improve student employability. Firstly, a general descriptive analysis is performed and the main correlations between key factors in this research are underlined. In the second part, data analysis considers the three focus groups. Their transcripts are the main source

of information. The grounded theory approach [83,84] supports the structure and the procedure to understand which entrepreneurial training activities are more interesting and why. Atlas.ti is the tool used to systemize the data and provide the desirable insights. The feelings and opinions of the students and lecturers regarding the activities were identified and, finally, the focus was on their specific impact on developing entrepreneurial competences. The codification procedure consisted of identifying keywords or sentences. Only tags used more frequently are retained to provide a better understanding of the most significant questions and allow a more comprehensive comparison. The following step was to group the concepts, and, in any case, some re-coding of the tag was performed to achieve a wider vision. Figure 1 shows the data structure with aggregate dimensions and categories, while Figure 2 highlights the dynamic relationships between topics and dimensions.
