Search results

This paper sets out to apply practically the constructs of the entrepreneurial performance training model to three different training interventions, known as the business start‐up, basic entrepreneurship, and advanced entrepreneurship programmes. Furthermore, the paper aims to measure the business performance indicators and skills transfer that took place after the training interventions.

Quantitative research was conducted, using three validated research questionnaires. The research design consists of a pre‐test, post‐test and post‐post test (ten weeks after the training interventions took place). Factor analysis was done, descriptive statistics arising from opinions and expressions are presented and statistical tests such as the Chi‐square test and ANOVA provide inferential statistics.

The business performance indicators improved for all three training groups after they attended the training interventions. Furthermore, it was proved that skills transfer took place after the respondents attended the training interventions.

The training groups can be measured again after 18 months of three years to really determine the impact of the training interventions. The results of the three training programmes can be compared to see whether the basic entrepreneurship groups gained more skills and their business performance indicators increased more than the business start‐up or advanced entrepreneurship programmes.

The outcomes and implications of this research paper emphasise that it is imperative to design training programmes based on training models that have been tested. This paper highlights some aspects of how constructs used within the training models can be tested.

The entrepreneurial performance‐training model was practically applied and provides a set of expectations for other entrepreneurship models as well as presenting a benchmark against which programme performance can be measured. A unique teaching methodology is portrayed that contributes to the overall effectiveness of the training model.

This paper focuses on the comparison of two models for entrepreneurial education with the aim of potential integration. At this juncture when entrepreneurial development is seen as the core contributor to enhance start‐ups of new ventures and hence facilitate economic growth and development, the best possible education model is required. The creation of more entrepreneurs is at least partially dependent on the creation and advancement of efficient educational models.

First, this paper briefly describes the two independently developed models for entrepreneurial education. Second, an in‐depth qualitative analysis of the individual model constructs is presented to evaluate the contributions and limitations of each. Third, this paper proposes an integrated model that identifies certain weaknesses of each of its building‐blocks, which are eliminated by the integration.

The paper concludes that the integrated model for entrepreneurial education enhances the body of knowledge and highlights the key role of facilitators of entrepreneurial education programmes.

Suggests that research should be conducted into the facilitation skills, entrepreneurial and business experience of existing facilitators and potentially those of business advisers that act as mentors.