Our paper aims at investigating the most adequate methods for developing effective educational tools in entrepreneurial education. Entrepreneurship education should take place during the entire life of an entrepreneur, but the basic knowledge and skills related to this field are acquired starting from the elementary school, and improved during all the educational levels. Through entrepreneurship education, policymakers aim to prepare young people for succeeding on the entrepreneurial path. However, there are few scientific papers that aimed at discussing the available educational tools in Romania which play a role in forming entrepreneurs. Starting from the identified educational needs of young Romanian people under 35, including entrepreneurs and students, which were surveyed based on a questionnaire, we advance several key improvement areas for Romanian business curricula, and suggest critical paths to obtain desired results. The recommendations that we deliver through this paper are based on respondents’ opinions regarding their preference for certain aspects related to educational tools used in entrepreneurial education: learning materials used in universities in order to create an entrepreneurial mindset, the use of learning materials outside of the university curricula, and entrepreneurial skills that should be developed during school. A comparative perspective, examining curricular specificities in most entrepreneurial cultures of Europe, based on information obtained from Entrepreneurship Eurobarometer and Doing Business Indicators, is also included in our study. The main limitations, which arise from the subjective perspective of young entrepreneurs, as well as from the reduced sample volume, are thus corrected. The conclusions of our analysis provide a valuable starting point for educational policies promoting entrepreneurial skills enhancement in the Romanian business students’ population.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Basci E. and Alkan R. (2015). Entrepreneurship education at universities: suggestion for a model using financial support. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 195 856-861.
Bratianu C. (2007). Thinking patterns and knowledge dynamics. In D. Remenyi (ed.). Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Knowledge Management (pp. 152-156) Consorci escolar Industrial Barcelona Spain 6-7 September 2007.
Bratianu C. (2009). The frontier of linearity in the intellectual capital metaphor. In C. Stam (Ed.). Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital (pp. 97-103) Inholland University of Applied Sciences Haarlem The Netherlands 28-29 April 2009.
Dima A.M. (2009). Operational risk assessment tools for quality management in banking services. Amfiteatru economic 11(26) 364-372.
Dima A. M. & Ghinea V. (2016 November). A Model of Academic Leadership. In European Conference on Management Leadership & Governance (p. 61). Academic Conferences International Limited.
Dima A. M. Hadad S. & Cantaragiu R. (2016). A conceptual analysis of business-university knowledge transfers in the energy field. ENERGY CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABILITY 201-207.
Din B. Anuar A. and Usman M. (2016). The effectiveness of the entrepreneurship education program in upgrading entrepreneurial skills among public university students. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 224 117-123.
Harms R. (2015). Self-regulated learning team learning and project performance in entrepreneurship education: learning in a lean start-up environment. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. 100 21-28.
Hobikoglu E. and Sanli B. (2015). Comparative analysis in the frame of business establishment criteria and entrepreneurship education from the viewpoint of economy policies supported by innovative entrepreneurship. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 195 1156-1165.
Jansen S. Zande T. Brinkkemper S. Stam E. and Varma V. (2015). How education stimulation and incubation encourage student entrepreneurship: observations from MIT IIIT and Utrecht University. The International Journal of Management Education. 13 170-181.
Lim D. Morse E. Mitchell R. and Seawright K. (2010). Institutional environment and entrepreneurial cognitions: a comparative business systems perspective. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice. 34 491-516.
Miron D. Dima A.M. and Vasilache S.N. (2009) Indexes of regional economic growth in post-accession Romania Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting 11(3) 138-152.
Premand P. Brodmann S. Almeida R. Grun R. and Barouni M. (2016). Entrepreneurship education and entry into self-employment among university graduates. World Development. 77 311-327.
Ruskovaara E. Pihkala T. Leino J. and Jarvinen M. (2015). Broadening the resource base for entrepreneurship education through teachers’ networking activities. Teaching and Teacher Education. 47 62-70.
Vilcov N. and Dimitrescu M. (2015). Management of entrepreneurship education: a challenge for a performant educational system in Romania. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences. 203 173-179.
Walter S. and Block J. (2016). Outcomes of entrepreneurship education: an institutional perspective. Journal of Business Venturing. 31 216-233.
Walter S. Parboteeah K. and Walter A. (2013). University departments and self-employment intentions of business students: a cross level analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice. 37 175-200.
Welsh D. Tullar W. and Nemati H. (2016). Entrepreneurship education: process method or both. Journal of Innovation and Knowledge. 1 125-132.