Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Similares en
SciELO 
Permalink
1. Introduction
Entrepreneurship Education (EE) today faces great challenges, going from stereotype teaching practices to new practices and students whom some sometimes conclude that after entrepreneurship education this is not for them (Lackéus, 2025). In addition, there are other factors, such as the institutional context or the role of the entrepreneurship education administrator, that can impact teaching, at a time when there is still debate about whether it is possible to teach skills, which increases complexity (Lane & Newbery, 2024).
But despite how difficult it seems Entrepreneurship can be taught, and can be taught as a method. A method “represents a body of skills and techniques”, i.e., entrepreneurship can be taught by developing certain skills and teaching certain techniques, but for this to happen, learning must be experiential and active (Neck & Greene, 2011); in contrast to passive learning could be better to develop theoretical knowledge (Kozlinska, 2023). In this sense, active learning is based on Piaget’s (1950) theory, which states that student learns through iteration and reflection.
In general, there are three general approaches can be found in teaching Entrepreneurship Education (EE): Education about (theoretical concepts), Education for (practical orientation tools), and Education through (attitudes and skills) (Gangi & Sirelkhatim, 2023). Entrepreneurship courses should include the delivery of all approaches to cover all audiences (Gibb, 2002; cited by Winsor & Hanlon, 2016). However, the latter approach, which seeks to build skills, often appears to be the most complex.
Within this complexity, training skills becomes a challenge, besides, attitudes generated through this teaching type are fundamental in the entrepreneurial and innovative process, and for this reason, they are usually widely studied and in turn encompassed in the so-called mindset, defined as the “mental perspective that precedes our actions and feeds our emotions, allowing us to innovate” (Kuratko et al., 2020).
In this sense, several teaching techniques emerge to favor this type of active and experiential learning to develop skills. For example, the Flipped Classroom technique allows to development of skills and not only teaches knowledge (Bergmann & Sams, 2014), but it can be powerful in combination with other active learning techniques such as play and project-based learning, among others.
For this research, the main objective is to compare teaching techniques to improve skills development in entrepreneurship students. Seeking to understand the impact on their entrepreneurial mindset, specifically in the self-regulation and self-efficacy constructs, after being subjected to master class (CONF) technique and the flipped classroom teaching technique combined with playful activities (LUD) and project-based learning (PBL).
An experimental design was proposed, through a randomized sample of students of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation course at Universidad Anáhuac México, selected from the literature the construct self-efficacy as a dependent variable, and self-regulation for learning as an independent variable. A post-intervention instrument was used to collect data. Subsequently, the collected data were subjected to statistical treatment using factor analysis and structural equations.
This paper begins with a literature review to know the state of the art, followed by an explanation of the experimental design and methodology used, the presentation of results, and, finally, the discussion and conclusions obtained, indicating the main lines of research to follow, as well as the contributions of the article to the literature.
2. Literature review
Constructivism places the student at the center and encourages learning to change from individual work to cooperative work; but doesn’t eliminate elements such as individual responsibility and group processing, with the development of collaborative skills and positive interdependence; through the research process which favors knowledge discovery (Woolfolk, 2023). This learning type, meaningful and by autonomous discovery, is based on the presence of previous ideas or cognitive structures, to relate them to new knowledge (Ausubel, 1983).
In this sense, the active role of the entrepreneurship student becomes fundamental in the teaching-learning process (Gangi & Sirelkhatim, 2023), in this teaching type, the educator must encourage a process of formulating hypotheses, collecting data, and drawing conclusions and reflections, which brings us closer to the constructivist approach of Piaget (1993) and Vygostky (2013).
For learning to be meaningful, the student doesn’t remain at the level of knowledge, it is not something rote that is learned by coercion but makes a relationship with his personal experiences and interests and learns it for pleasure (Wibowo et al., 2025). In this sense, various analyses arise on how this type of teaching potentiates certain constructs of the entrepreneurial mindset, which are detailed below.
2.1. Active teaching techniques in Entrepreneurship Education to develop entrepreneurial mindset.
The use of active teaching techniques in EE has shown an impact on the entrepreneurial mindset. Previously, the effect on some specific variables has been empirically studied, demonstrating the use of active learning techniques over traditional techniques has a positive relationship with the increase in main entrepreneurial skills such as self-efficacy, entrepreneurial intention (Mukesh et al., 2020;Ripollés & Blesa, 2024) or students’ interest in entrepreneurship (Taneja et al., 2023), amoung others. However, the impact level of the selected teaching technique can vary according to the maturity level of the students (Neck & Corbett, 2018) or even according to the cultural background of the students (Ismail et al., 2018).
Previous research has demonstrated the positive effect of specific learning techniques such as gamification (Fatemeh, 2025;Pérez-Macías et al., 2025), project-based learning (Lykourentzou & Vratimos, 2025) or flipped classroom (Bergmann & Sams, 2014;Horng et al., 2020), simulations and challenge- based learning (Rosário & Raimundo, 2024), amoung others, in entrepreneurial mindset skills. It’s important to highlight that the majority of the research is focus on project-based learning, a teaching technique that faces students with real problems to try to solve them (Rosário & Raimundo, 2024).
In general, there is a vast literature of experimental and theoretical studies that specifically analyzes whether the type of teaching technique selected has any type of impact on the entrepreneurial intention, using various variables as mediators, in the most of the cases with focus in self-efficacy and finding in these studies a positive relationship in the impact of the use of these techniques on these constructs (Mukesh et al., 2020;Ripollés & Blesa, 2024;Fatemeh, 2025;Pérez-Macías et al., 2025).
However, most studies focus on students from the West, specially USA and Spain (Rosário & Raimundo, 2024), it seems important to have the contribution of Latin American student’s metrics by construct and teaching technique because previous studies show a greater impact of EE with active techniques, but in Western students, in the opposite direction, in students from Asian regions, the traditional technique has better results, apparently due to cultural aspects (Ismail et al., 2018).
In addition to the above, it’s important to understand which of these teaching techniques are better to develop certain skills. Also, most of them can be applied mixed with others, for example, the Flipped Classroom technique allows to development of skills and not only teaches knowledge (Bergmann & Sams, 2014) and it can be powerful applied in combination with other active learning techniques such as gamification, a fun and playful learning technique (Fatemeh, 2025); among others.
Finally, there are some comparative experimental o quasi-experimental studies trying to compare the impact between teaching learning techniques and finding the impact of some teaching learning techniques such as project based learning on the self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention constructs, (Fatemeh, 2025) but also only for west students, it’s important to understand if is similar for Latin American students.
2.2. Self-efficacy in Entrepreneurial Mindset: behavioral research
In general, the entrepreneurial mindset can be grouped into three types of aspects: cognitive, behavioral, and emotional (Kuratko et al., 2020). Self- efficacy is inserted within behavior aspects and has been studied in the field of psychology since the Social Learning Theory (SLT) or Socio-Cognitive Theory of Albert Bandura (1978), but also from other perspectives such as the Theory of Cognition and Behavior (Mauer et al., 2009) or the Theory of Planned Behavior or TPB (Ajzen, 1991; cited byHassan, 2020).
The self-efficacy construct is defined as the flame of motivation that can turn off or ignite the impulse of individuals to engage in certain behaviors, by mitigating or increasing their fears about their abilities to perform a task, and plays a fundamental role within SLT (Bandura, 1978).
Self-efficacy has been measured with different approaches in the entrepreneurship literature, studies can be grouped into 3 groups: task-specific measurement, domain-specific measurement, and general measurements; placing the entrepreneurial perspective within the group of specific domains (Mauer et al., 2009). Different researchers have analyzed this aspect from a competency approach, proposing several ratings (González-López et al., 2020).
It is important to note a large amount of the papers about self-efficacy are based on Ajzen’s (1991) TPB. This behavioral theory analyzes the behavioral changes that a person faces by combining three constructs: their previous attitudes, social norms, and the locus of control or self-efficacy (Ajzen, 1991). Many of the published papers are causal or empirical and aim to measure the impact of these three constructs, most of which conclude their impact or mediation on entrepreneurial intention (Mukesh et al., 2020;Hassan, 2020;Paray & Kumar, 2020).
Some other studies considered as independent variables the constructs proposed by the TPB (subjective norms, previous attitudes, and locus of control-self-efficacy) either alone (Hassan, 2020) or mediated by other variables, such as self-employment (Otache et al., 2020), emotional competencies (Huezo-Ponce et al., 2021), entrepreneurial education (Cui & Gu, 2024), spirituality (Cegarra-Navarro et al., 2023), innovation (Bell, 2019) or career selection (Cui & Gu, 2024), the impact of role models on entrepreneurial intention (Wardana et al., 2024); among others. Some of theme inclusive propose or test new tools to measure the constructs (Norambuena et al., 2024).
In addition, some studies are focused on studying entrepreneurial intention but with other theoretical approaches (not based in TPB) such as learning and education (Horng et al., 2020); the profitability of the entrepreneur’s efforts (Schultz, 1985; cited by Aboobaker & Renjini, 2020) based on the Social Capital Theory; career choice based on Oyama’s Relational Developmental Systems Theory (Oyama, 1985; cited by Gilmartin et al., 2019); self- regulation based on the concept of Core-Self evaluations (Judge et al., 1997; cited by Auzoult et al., 2016) or entrepreneurial education based on Identity Conflict Theory (Shepherd & Haynie, 2009; cited by Newbery et al., 2018).
As can be seen, most of the literature use TPB as a base theory to measure entrepreneurial intention and related constructs as self-efficacy, however, the main criticism of the findings of TPB based papers lies in the fact that intentions are not necessarily reflected in behaviors, and the results of such research demónstrate a modérate, indirect, or no impact, therefore, some papers analyze other perspectives or moments in decision-making to understand if intentions really translate into concrete actions or implementation (Ismail et al., 2018).
2.3. Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning in Entrepreneurial Mindset: social-cognitive research
From another perspective, there is different approach of self-efficacy in the context of social cognitive research, the relationship between self-efficacy and self-regulated learning proposed by Zimmerman in his Cyclical Model or CM (Zimmerman, 2013) which emerges as a different approach, not in the context of entrepreneurial intention but in the context of education.
Unlike behavioral researchers, for social cognitive researchers (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001) self-regulation refers to a process through which students develop skills, not only as an aptitude or an ability in itself. From this perspective, self-regulated learning includes both individual and social forms of learning (Zimmerman & Campillo, 2003), that is, it can be reflected both in skills such as conflict resolution but also in requesting help from others to do so (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). It’s important to highlight the main role of the educator motivating this goal setting, suggesting or asking for specific study strategies and asking to self-evaluate the tasks, all of this considering student's beliefs but also self-efficacy perception (Zimmerman et al.1996).
Under this position, self-efficacy is part of a 3-stage model that occurs during the learning process, during which the student first of all analyzes the task to be performed, then sets objectives, and motivates himself to perform it but also evaluates if is capable (self-efficacy); then executes the task while using various self-control strategies to stay engaged and motivated to finish; finally, students reflect to evaluate their performance on the task (Zimmerman & Kitsantas, 1997;Panadero, 2017) . Likewise, derived from this model, 5 different instruments have been developed to measure self-regulation and self- efficacy for self-regulated learning (Panadero, 2017).
Previous research has already found positive relation between self-regulation and self-efficacy in the learning context (Longhurst, 2024;Sulistiani et al, 2024), their mediating role (Do & Lai, 2024), the non linear effect between the constructs (Uy et al. 2023) or the relationship between constructs when technology as ChatGPT is applied (Wu et al., 2024).
For this study, it has been decided to take as a basis the SLT (Bandura, 1978) definition for self-efficacy and the MC (Zimmerman & Iwanski, 2014) theory, because the contribution is focused in reviewing the concept of self-efficacy from a socio-cognitive perspective (as a process) during the learning process and related to self-regulation, comparing for this purpose different learning techniques, but not to measure entrepreneurial intention (behavioral), which allows to evaluate the construct from another perspective considering the existence of skills and attitudes which favor entrepreneurship education. In this sense, the following section describes the experimental design and the methodology used.
3. Methods
3.1. Methodological approach and data analysis
For this research, the main objective is to compare teaching techniques to understand which ones favor skills development in entrepreneurship students. Seeking to delve into the changes presented in their entrepreneurial mindset, particularly in the aspect of self-efficacy and self-regulation, after being subjected to the flipped classroom teaching technique combined with playful activities (LUD), project-based learning (PBL), and the classic master class or conference (CONF).
To this end, an experimental design was proposed, through a randomized sample of 106 students of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation course in Universidad Anáhuac México, selected from the literature an aspect of the entrepreneurial mindset most commonly measured as a independent variable, self-efficacy (AF), and self-regulation for learning (AR) as an dependent variable, considering the three teaching techniques: CONF, LUD, and PBL.
Specifically, the factor analysis procedure was carried out to generate the constructs of Self-Efficacy (AF) and Self-Regulated Learning (AR). This procedure identifies underlying patterns in the set of items to discern common variance and generate estimates of latent variables, also called factors. These factors are statistically evaluated to validate their correspondence with the theoretical variables indicated in the literature and proceed to study their relationships and causality, which is known as confirmatory factor analysis (Peña, 2018).
Based on the AF and AR constructs, a structural equation model (SEM) is estimated to quantify the effect of Self-efficacy (AR) on Self-Regulated Learning (AR) (see Appendix 1) in the PBL, LUD, and CONF groups, with the master class or CONF group being the control group (base group).
Structural equations make it possible to evaluate and analyze the relationships between observed and latent variables in a theoretical model, allowing concepts that cannot be measured directly to be measured more accurately. In addition, SEM allows several statistical tests to be carried out to verify whether the theoretical model fits the data adequately and whether the relationships between the variables are meaningful and consistent with the research hypotheses (Acock, 2013).
Additionally, a Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) exercise is performed to verify if there are differences in the mean of the AF and AR variables, attributable to sex, age, or career.
3.2. Sample
The students’ sample used is a randomized sample taking the total amount of students in the Entrepreneurship and Innovation course. The 106 students were invited to participate through an invitation sent by email at the end of the course. All students enrolled in the course without knowing which type of course each one corresponded to; the randomization was performed by the authors in a simple random sampling.
Students enrolled were randomized into 3 groups: a control group to be trained with traditional teaching-teaching technique (CONF), a second group to be trained with flipped class combined with play (LUD), and a third group to be trained with flipped class combined with project-based learning (PBL). The course considers experimentation and validation though Lean Startup and Design Thinking methodology. One of the authors was responsible to teach this course.
All participants were undergraduate students, aged between 18 and 26 years, who were enrolled in the Entrepreneurship and Innovation course (mandatory course) at Universidad Anáhuac México (See Table 1).
3.3. Variables
In this study, the control group and two treatment groups were defined as follows:
a) Control treatment: Course based on traditional teaching technique (CONF).
b) Treatment 1: Course based on Flipped Classroom Technique Course combined with Project-Based Learning (PBL).
c) Treatment 2: Course based on Flipped Classroom Technique Combined with Play (LUD).
The independent variable is Self-efficacy (AF) and the dependent variable is Self-Regulated Learning (AR), see Appendix 1. In this regard, age, sex, career, and business family history were considered as control variables. In this sense, the hypotheses are as follows:
a) H0: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students do not increase when they are trained with active techniques.
b) H1: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students when receiving flipped classroom technique training combined with play increase better than when receiving traditional technique training.
c) H2: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students when receiving flipped classroom training combined with project-based learning increase better than when receiving traditional technique training.
d) H3: Self-regulated (AR) learning has a direct and positive relationship with self-efficacy (Af).
3.3. Instruments for obtaining information and fieldwork
A Syllabus containing the same topics was designed for each course (CONF, LUD, and PBL), however, the first one was designed with traditional teaching technique, the second one with flipped classroom technique using play as an active technique, and the third one also using flipped combined with project- based learning as an active technique.
The course was taught in Bootcamp modality (duration: 2 hours) and was about teamwork techniques. The topic could be used later in the class to manage the activity to develop an innovative product or service in teamwork. The course was teached by one of the authors. The students selected the group in which they wished to register, without knowing the modality of teaching technique corresponding to each group. Finally, they answered a link with the survey to obtain the required information, which was statistical processed with a structural equation model (SEM). The tools used to collected data are two inventories previously used and validated in the literature: The development and validation of the Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory-Self- Report and the Self-Efficacy Questionnaire for Self-Regulation of Behavior (Cleary, 2006;Palenzuela et al., 1990). The following section reports the results and their interpretation.
4. Results
The results of the statistical analysis are presented below. Table 2 presents the items factor analysis; it can be observed that the first two factors are relevant since they have eigenvalues greater than one and gather 61.40% of the accumulated variance.
The item’s factor loads are grouped according to what is found in the literature under a threshold of 0.35. The first sixteen items are identified with Self- Efficacy (AF) and the remaining items with Self-Regulated Learning (AR) (See Appendix 2 and 3). Item number 34 is not significant. In what corresponds to the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin sample adequacy measure, 0.813 was found, which corresponds to a reasonable fit for the variables of this study (Woods & Edwards, 2007).
Similarly, Bartlett’s sphericity test was carried out, where a test statistic of 2284.76 was found with a p-value of less than 1%, which provides evidence that the elements that make up the factor analysis are significantly correlated since the determinant of the correlation matrix between the items is less than 0.0001 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). See Table 3.
A structural equation model (see model in Appendix 1) was carried out by groups that included the variables AF and AR to verify the relationship between them. Table 4 shows that there is a positive relationship, but only significant in the case of the PBL group (0.361, p-value<5%). This provides evidence that the didactic techniques applied in this group contribute to a relevant effect on AF and AR.
The estimates in Table 4 do not incorporate control variables, since the Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) method was carried out. No evidence was found of differences in the means of AF and AR, attributable to sex, age, career, or group: LUD, PBL, and CONF, given that the p-value is greater than the significance level of 10% (See Table 5).
In addition, Table 6 presents the classic goodness-of-fit indicators for an SEM model, namely CFI, TLI, SRMR, and RMSEA. It can be observed that these statistics meet the criteria to affirm that the estimation of structural equations is reasonable (Acock, 2013).
The above estimates provide evidence that mean Self-efficacy (AR) and mean Self-Regulated Learning (AR) do not differ between PBL, CONF, and LUD groups when age, sex, or career are considered (See Table 5).
However, according to SEM model (0.361, p-value<5%), there is evidence that the effect of Self-Efficacy (AF) on Self-Regulated Learning (AR) is positive and significant, with 99% confidence, in the case of the PBL group. So, H2 can be validated, but H3 can only be validated for PBL group (See Table 4).
a) H2: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students when receiving flipped classroom training combined with project-based learning (PBL) increase better than when receiving traditional technique training (CONF).
b) H3: Self-regulated (AR) learning has a direct and positive relationship with self-efficacy (AF).
This does not occur in the case of the group treated with LUD where the p- value shows us that there is no impact when using this technique. H1 is invalid.
c) H1: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students when receiving flipped classroom technique training combined with play (LUD) increase better than when receiving traditional technique training (CONF),
As a consequence of the previous results, hypothesis H0 is invalid.
5. Discussion and conclusions
Entrepreneurship education faces great challenges, one of the most complex being to train students not only knowledge but also skills and attitudes (Gangi & Sirelkhatim, 2023). This type of training requires experiential and active learning (Neck & Greene, 2011) that can be favored through certain educational techniques (Mukesh et al., 2020).
Most of the studies carried out to measure the impact of these active techniques on the entrepreneurial mindset focus on self-efficacy based on Ajzen’s (1991) TPB, mostly concluding the impact or mediation of these on entrepreneurial intention (Hassan, 2020;Paray & Kumar, 2020).
For this study, the SLT (Bandura, 1978) and the MC (Zimmerman & Iwanski, 2014) were taken as a basis, because the contribution lies in reviewing the concept of self-efficacy from a socio-cognitive perspective (i.e., skills and attitudes), and not only behavioral (entrepreneurial intention). Therefore, the construct of self-efficacy was chosen for self-regulation specifically in Latin American students, after being subjected to the flipped classroom teaching technique combined with LUD, PBL, and CONF, measuring the impact on the AF and AR constructs.
After an experimental treatment through a randomized sample of 106 students of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation course at Universidad Anáhuac México, no evidence could be found that mean Self-efficacy (AF) and mean Self-Regulated Learning (AR) differ between the PBL, CONF, and LUD groups when age, sex or career are considered.
However, there is evidence that the effect of AF on AR is positive and significant, with 99% confidence, in the case of the PBL group, coinciding with previous research that supports that this active technique favors the development of skills (Lykourentzou & Vratimos, 2025). This suggests that courses should be implemented with such a project-based approach, rather than based on gamification or master class, to increase AF and AR. In short validating H2 and H3 (just for PBL) which postulated that:
H2: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students when receiving flipped classroom training combined with project-based learning (PBL) increase better than when receiving traditional technique training (CONF).
H3: Self-regulated (AR) learning has a direct and positive relationship with self-efficacy (AF).
Based on previous results H1 y H0 are invalids:
H2: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students when receiving flipped classroom training combined with project-based learning (PBL) increase better than when receiving traditional technique training (CONF).
H0: Self-efficacy (AF) and self-regulated learning (AR) in students do not increase when they are trained with active techniques (PBL, LUD).
The latter coincides with previous findings where the effect on self-efficacy when using active techniques had been studied (Mukesh et al., 2020), however, it is important to point out again that this effect is only detected with the use of PBL and not LUD, i.e., differing from what was previously found (Fameteh, 2025) where positive relationships between self-efficacy and gamification had been found. This may be attributed to the fact that this study uses an approach based on CM theory (Zimmerman et al.,1996) and not on TPB (Ajzen, 1991), that is, it does not focus on understanding the impact of self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention, often understood as business creation (Mukesh et al., 2020;Hassan, 2020;Paray & Kumar, 2020), but focuses on understand self-efficacy as an mediator in the leaming process, where it can favor the development of other skills such as self-regulation (Longhurst, 2024;Sulistiani et al, 2024;Do & Lai, 2024), that is, in its role supporting learning.
Neither, it can’t be generalized to other cultures, for example in Asian Regions the traditional teaching techniques (CONF) has better results than active techniques (Ismail et al., 2018)., a difference from the West where students prefer active education, as this study seems to indicate for Latin American students.
In summary, the above results suggest that the implementation of courses based on the combination of flipped classrooms with PBL can have a positive impact on the constructs of AR and AF, favoring that the active role of the entrepreneurship student becomes fundamental in the teaching-learning process (Gangi & Sirelkhatim, 2023). In other words, the development of the attitudinal constructs of the entrepreneurial mentality is favored with this active technique, as the use of active techniques for this has previously been suggested by authors such as Neck & Greene (2011). The main contributions of the study focus on first, to provide literature on Latin American profiles, but also in highlight the importance of the educator’s role when he or she has the power to select the teaching technique, as previous Zimmerman et al. (1996) postulate.
Also, when AF is studied as part of a learning process with MC and as a mediator for AR development (and not as entrepreneurship intention), the educator's selection of the learning technique should consider which skills are going to be developed, because it was suggested in this study not all learning techniques favors the development of all the skills and the learning process itself. Reinforcing Zimmerman & Schunk (2007) whom postulates learning technique selected can impact the motivation, achievement and cognitive development of the student favoring or not the social and individual learning process. It is not just about developing entrepreneurial skills, but also about promoting learning.
As a result, a comparison of different active techniques was presented to measure the impacts on individual skills, using the SLT (Bandura, 1978) and the MC (Zimmerman & Iwanski, 2014) as a basis to study a perspective of skills development during the learning process and not of entrepreneurship intention, concluding the positive impact on AF and AR when PBL is applied, but not with other learning techniques. Reinforcing the main importance of the educator selection of the learning technique on the student’s beliefs and motivation (Zimmerman et al.,1996).
Finally, is suggested, as Zimmerman et al. (1996) previously recommend, that Entrepreneurship Education must consider students’ beliefs, their perception of self-efficacy and causal attributions that allow them to define their cognitive or motivational difficulties to find alternative solutions for learning. Student’s need self-efficacy not only for entrepreneurship intention, they need it to learn entrepreneurship. It emerges as necessary to go deeper in understanding of self-efficacy, self-regulation and other skills not only since the main focus of favors entrepreneurship intention, may be considering how to favor the entrepreneurship learning process. But also, in making educators aware of the importance of educational innovation and therefore, in the selection of the educational method they use to develop certain skills.
5.1 Limitations
As limitations, it is specified that the study was only carried out with students from a single Educational Institution with a small sample, which limits the profile studied, although it should be noted that there was diversity in terms of age, gender, and careers studied. It opens up the possibility of carrying out a further experiment combined with Latin American students of various nationalities.
Another limitation goes around the sample size, that could be increased and diversified in a second study. The results obtained above cannot be generalized to other populations where the cultural context is different; Mexico’s proximity to the United States makes a difference due to the degree of cultural contact. Additionally, future research could consider public universities, not just prívate ones, as well as representatives from other countries and cultures.
