View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article
 
DOI: 10.1039/D2RP00011C (Paper) Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 2022, 23, 475-485

The effectiveness of education with the STEM approach in the development of entrepreneurial thinking in chemistry students

Zakyeh Akrami
Department of Chemistry, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran. E-mail: z.akrami@cfu.ac.ir

Received 6th January 2022 , Accepted 2nd February 2022

First published on 7th February 2022

Abstract

Entrepreneurship is a teachable issue, and certain educational approaches can affect the entrepreneurial performance of learners. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of education with the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach on the development of the entrepreneurial thinking skills of students who were studying at the Farhangian Teacher Education University. The method of the study is quasi-experimental. A total of 355 students were randomly selected as the statistical sample via multi-stage cluster sampling. The required data for the study were collected using a questionnaire, which was made by the researcher with a reliability of 0.78. Descriptive statistics and independent t-testing were used to obtain the results. The SPSS and LISREL software packages were used to analyze the data. The results showed that the STEM approach affects the general entrepreneurial characteristics, including self-confidence, thinking skills, risk-taking, leadership, creativity, and foresight. In addition, a significant relationship was observed between gender and the rate of entrepreneurial thinking development at the level of 99% confidence. There was a significant difference between male and female participants in all general characteristics of entrepreneurship, as well as in the overall entrepreneurship scale. According to the results of the study, educational institutions can provide a suitable field for developing talents and abilities of learners by choosing the most appropriate approach to teaching.

1. Introduction

According to the definition of the Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, an entrepreneur is someone who can understand innovation and commercialization. Using this definition, entrepreneurship is a qualitative description and refers to the performance of opportunistic people who achieve business success. Entrepreneurship also includes concepts such as growth, innovation, scalability, and job creation (Global Entrepreneurship Index, 2017). There are several definitions of the concept of entrepreneurship by experts, theorists, and managers. The existence of differences in the definition of entrepreneurship, on the one hand, indicates its breadth and importance, which can be examined from different perspectives, and on the other hand, indicates the dynamics of the subject, which can provide different models and theories. In sum, definitions of entrepreneurship typically refer to a process that ultimately results in innovative and risk-taking forms of behavior that require the motivation to succeed, personal satisfaction, passion, and perseverance with the product or service.

One of the most important issues in entrepreneurship debates is to strengthen entrepreneurial behavior in people (Bergman and McMullen, 2021). Different people have different entrepreneurial qualities, which make different forms of entrepreneurial behavior in similar situations (Rabin et al., 2021). The most important personality traits that researchers agree upon are internal control, the need for success, good mental health, pragmatism, romanticizing, and challenging (Matheerne et al., 2020). Examination of the sociological theories of entrepreneurship have demonstrated that individual and environmental factors are influential in forming entrepreneurial behavior (Webb, 2021).

Studies have shown that different people with similar entrepreneurial characteristics show different types of entrepreneurial behavior (Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2020). This specifies an important position for environmental factors, which can be trained, nurtured, and reinforced. They are known as intra-organizational factors. The clear point is that, if an individual's personality traits are favorable, entrepreneurship will not be completely successful unless environmental factors are also favorable (Laguia et al., 2019). Abraham (2020) in his study concluded that besides individual factors, environmental factors such as social, economic, financial, organizational, and governmental support can also affect the development of entrepreneurship. Therefore, in training entrepreneurs and leading them to success, factors that make the situation favorable should also be considered (Hahn et al., 2020). Recognizing and trying to improve these environmental factors greatly alters the entrepreneurial desire of individuals and the possibility of self-employment. Furthermore, it increases people's chances of success (Beliaeva et al., 2017).

Numerous and effective environmental factors play important roles in the rate of job success and entrepreneurship for individuals. One of these valuable factors is to study at a university (Marques et al., 2018). Although out-of-university learning situations are growing and university is not the only place to learn, universities play a key role in creating entrepreneurial learning opportunities. Ieves (2011) believe that paying attention to entrepreneurship at university provides the necessary motivation and skills for students to start a successful business.

In recent years, entrepreneurial specialists, curriculum planners and education experts have paid a lot of attention to entrepreneurship in universities and have nurtured entrepreneurial abilities. Education experts believe that mere attention to a major-based teaching approach will not meet a human's real-life needs in the future. They express that the main approach of education should be to guide learners to use science for solving real-life problems as well as to mature their creativity and entrepreneurial abilities (Askarifard et al., 2017).

To achieve this goal, curriculum planners have tried to make a positive change by altering the educational content and transferring it from purely theory-based to practice (Johnson and Schaltegger, 2019). However, in solving environmental issues, it is necessary to consider experience, quality, social and economic feasibility, environmental effects, expected benefits and many other things. Education can have a positive effect on entrepreneurial motivation, skills, and knowledge (Sarasvathy, 2021). Lotfi et al. (2019) in their study showed that skills-based training plays a vital role in the behavioral and personality skills of students.

Over the past decades, this belief has been rapidly gaining strength among curriculum researchers, i.e., that by choosing the right teaching approach, students can achieve some of their educational goals (Dou et al., 2019). By retraining and through experience, we can develop the ability of learners to meet desires, professional and entrepreneurial demands (Fernandez et al., 2018).

In dealing with problems, there are different approaches that usually help to design and build a model to provide an answer to a problem. In their study, Toghrayee et al. (2019) showed that if we want to have entrepreneurial skills in society, we need to develop entrepreneurial components and characteristics in educational environments such as universities, and this can be facilitated by selecting appropriate educational approaches.

The educational system of a country is responsible for teaching different skills, such as individual, social, communication, professional, and entrepreneurship skills. Using a new approach such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in an educational system can be considered for learners to develop these skills, due to the effective relationship between new educational approaches and learning the skills.

The STEM approach is an integrated interdisciplinary and operational strategy that teaches real-world problem solving (Baharin et al., 2018). Using this approach, technology has made major changes in various aspects of human activities by developing engineering as well as using the ideas of science and mathematics to identify problems and provide solutions. Under this approach, learners can strengthen their creative knowledge, creative thinking, critical thinking, problem solving, communication, and leadership as well as their entrepreneurial skills with the help of their scientific knowledge along with mathematics, engineering, and technology. The high success of the STEM approach for solving daily problems increases the attractiveness of basic science, mathematics, engineering and technology for students (Panda, 2018). Therefore, increasing the creativity, scientific knowledge, and motivation of students are some of the achievements of the STEM approach. Increasing these skills may affect people's entrepreneurship. The study of previous research demonstrated that experts, theorists, and curriculum planners have identified various aspects of the development of entrepreneurial capabilities, which can be achieved by choosing an appropriate educational approach. Table 1 summarizes the previous related studies.

Table 1 Previous related studies
Researchers Goal Educational approach Finding
Askarifard et al. (2017) Providing an educational model for developing the entrepreneurial skills of students Exploratory An appropriate educational approach can affect the students’ managerial abilities, communication skills, and planning
Wibowo et al. (2018) Teaching creativity and entrepreneurship at school Interactive Teamwork reinforces coming up with new ideas and helps to provide creative solutions to a problem
Zulfiqar et al. (2019) Investigating the effect of modern education on the entrepreneurial attitude of students Storytelling Storytelling strengthens the students’ entrepreneurial attitude, creativity, and desire for success, as well as self-confidence
Adobor and Daneshfar (2006) Investigating the effect of risk-taking personality traits on entrepreneurial desire Exploring Proper education has a significant effect on increasing the power of risk-taking, strategic decision-making, realism, and pragmatism of individuals
Bell and Loon (2015) Investigating the effect of education on the formation of entrepreneurial intention Inductive thinking The characteristics of entrepreneurs are risk-taking, opportunism, responsibility, self-confidence, creativity, and managerial intelligence
Alshebami et al. (2020) Analysis of futurology research in entrepreneurship development in the higher education system Futurology The futurology approach fosters ideas, creativity, thinking, and foresight
Audretsch et al. (2020) Designing an entrepreneurial model Exploratory Self-confidence, leadership, risk-taking, and creativity are important components of entrepreneurship
Toghraei et al. (2019) Designing an entrepreneurial education model in schools Participatory Students will become innovative and skilful people by being on the appropriate educational path
Breugst and Shepherd (2016) Strengthening the entrepreneurial attitude in schools Teamwork Concepts that can be reinforced in an entrepreneurial attitude include the desire for success, personal control, creativity and innovation, self-esteem, and recognizing and taking advantage of opportunity

The findings of Table 1 confirm the positive effect of an appropriate educational approach on the development of entrepreneurial competencies. According to Table 1, the most important categories of entrepreneurial competencies that can be strengthened by choosing the appropriate education approaches are self-confidence, thinking skills, risk-taking, leadership, creativity, and foresight.

• Self-confidence is an attitude about one's skills and abilities. It means that a person accepts and trusts himself/herself and has a sense of control in his/her life (Otache et al., 2021).

• Thinking skills refer to the ability to identify marketplace opportunities and discover the most appropriate ways and time to capitalize on them. Sometimes, thinking skills are simply referred to as the ability to find and pursue the solution to a problem, but they are not necessarily an inherent trait and can easily be developed or improved (Vachliotis et al., 2021).

• Risk-taking enables and encourages innovation, which can be an important product/service differentiator. Risk-taking helps to shape future business strategies and can eventually lead to business growth (Bandera et al., 2018).

• Leadership involves organizing and motivating a group of people to achieve a common objective through innovation, risk optimization, taking advantage of opportunities, and managing the dynamic organizational environment (Bodolica et al., 2021).

• Creativity is a kind of learning skill that is possessed by an entrepreneur for exploring some inventive ideas and thoughts that can create a huge difference and help the business (Tantawy et al., 2021).

• Foresight may have a range of intended and unintended consequences. The impact of foresight on entrepreneurship is acknowledged as an important concept, and attention has been focused on constructing appropriate evaluation frameworks (Rhisiart and Evans, 2016).

The STEM approach was first introduced to strengthen the spirit of employment, vocational training, and entrepreneurship development in the United States in the form of a project called “Technological Education Progress” (Roberts and Cantu, 2012), and later it was added to the curriculum of a number of industrial systems as a new approach to education (Siekmann and Korbel, 2016). The designers of this the STEM educational approach believed that it considers the learners’ characteristics and integrates science, engineering, mathematics, and technology. Besides, the STEM approach has created useful learning experiences in the classroom and has guided the curiosity and imagination of students in the entrepreneurial activity. The STEM approach also provides the necessary platform for the development of professional, entrepreneurial skills and improves the quality of people's lives in the real world (Rabin et al., 2021).

In their study, Riihimaki and Viskupic (2020) showed that there is an effective relationship between using the STEM approach and the self-confidence and creativity of the students. Corlu (2014) considered the development of the learners’ entrepreneurship as one of the most important consequences of the STEM approach.

Chemistry, as an investigative science that deals with the procedures and processes of making things, has a role to play in providing the basic chemical knowledge and skills required for the active management of industries, one of the entrepreneurial initiatives in any society. Choosing a suitable approach to chemistry education can have be effective for developing the skills needed for self-reliance and entrepreneurship. In the latest study, Hardy et al. (2021) mentioned that chemistry, as a discipline, underpins industries that have multibillion dollar turnovers and that employ millions of people across the world. It can also enhance the management performance and creative leadership of learners. Baharin et al. (2018) in their study showed that this new educational approach creates learners who are ready to make decisions in challenging situations and employment opportunities.

The empirical evidence devoted to analyze the impact of perceptual factors in explaining the differences in the entrepreneurial intention of men and women is still limited and is not entirely conclusive (Mueller and Dato-On, 2013). These results are significantly more noteworthy when the analysis is focused on the entrepreneurial intention of men and women once they become entrepreneurs. Camelo-Ordaz et al. (2016) in their study showed that there is a relationship between gender and entrepreneurial intention. In recent years, the main challenge for all countries is quality education with inclusive and equitable access to education. The use of vocational training or an appropriate educational approach, especially in science and technology such as STEM, can improve the performance of males and females in all aspects of their lives. This helps to eliminate all forms of discrimination in education. There has yet to be a consensus in the literature on the effect of gender with STEM-related subjects among students. Various studies have stated that female students match or outperform their male counterparts in maths and science, based on their grades (Kenney-Benson et al., 2006; Shettle et al., 2007). According to a UNESCO report in 2020, currently, less than 30% of the world's entrepreneurs are women (UNESCO, 2020). Conversely, several empirical studies have showed an advantage of male students over their female peers (Robinson and Lubienski, 2011). For example, Ho et al. (2020) stated that being a woman can probably be found as a negative determinant for STEM-related issues. Therefore, the extent to which this approach is successful in advancing entrepreneurial goals needs to be examined further. This can justify the need for study and research on the use of the STEM approach to develop entrepreneurial capabilities.

The aim of this study was to scrutinize the effect of the STEM approach on the development of the general components of entrepreneurial thinking competencies. Based on all of the above, the study tries to answer the following basic questions:

(1) What is the effect of the STEM-based approach on the development of the perceived entrepreneurial skills of chemistry students?

(2) Does the gender of learners affect the impact of chemistry teaching when using the STEM approach for developing entrepreneurial abilities?

2. Methodology

2.1. Design and context of the study

The research method was a multi-stage cluster sampling technique. In this method, the statistical society was divided into several substrata. Then, a substratum was randomly selected from larger layers (Belz and Binder, 2017). The method of the present study is a quasi-experimental (Beliaeva et al., 2017). Regarding the nature of the subject, the goals and the use of its results in teaching and learning, it is an applied form of research. Applied research is the practical application of science.

2.2. Participants

Participants of the study were both undergraduate male and female students who were studying chemistry at Farhangian Teacher Education University in the 2019–2020 academic year. In order to collect the required data, 355 male and female students were randomly selected out of 4753 students by applying the table of Krejcie and Morgan (1970). For this study, 69.1% of the participants were male and 30.9% were female. The participants were divided into two groups, and contained two experimental groups and two comparison groups. The groups were by self-selecting and their roles were rotated. The groups were homogeneous based on gender. The demographic characteristics of the statistical sample are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Demographic background of the participants
Demographic dimensions Demographic variable Comparison group Experimental group
N Percentage N Percentage
N: number.
Gender Male 94 55.6 100 53.8
Female 75 44.4 86 46.2
Academic performance GPA less than 15 43 25.4 56 30.1
GPA between 15–18 87 51.5 83 44.6
GPA more than 18 39 23.1 47 25.3
N of samples 169 186

2.3. Instruments

A questionnaire investigating the personality traits of the entrepreneurs, which was designed and published by Kordnaeij et al. (2006), was used. This questionnaire measured seven entrepreneurial personality traits including balanced risk-taking (18 questions), internal control (17 questions), the need for success (15 questions), intellectual fluency (13 questions), pragmatism (8 questions), acceptance of ambiguity (11 questions), daydreaming (7 questions) and challenging (6 questions) in the form of 95 multiple-choice questions.

A researcher-made questionnaire was used to investigate the position of each student in the experimental and comparison group regarding their general entrepreneurial traits. This questionnaire consists of 30 questions (five questions for each of the six general entrepreneurial traits) and was designed based on a five-point Likert scale with responses ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The response to each question was scored between one (strongly disagree) and five (strongly agree). The mean rating scores from the survey responses based on the five-point Likert scale were calculated.

The reliability of this questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient (eqn (1)).

 
image file: d2rp00011c-t1.tif(1)
In eqn (1), α is Cronbach's alpha coefficient, K is the number of questions, σi is the variance of each question and σ is the total variance of the questions. Cronbach's α values for each dimension of six general entrepreneurial characteristics ranged from 0.781 to 0.859. An α value greater than 0.700 for each dimension indicates the acceptable reliability of the questionnaire (Cronbach and Shavelson, 2004). The researcher-made questionnaire was prepared in the primary language and then translated into the standard English language. The steps of this translation, including synthesis, translation, correlation, expert panel, and evaluation, are described in Table 3.

Table 3 The steps of translation procedures from the primary language into the standard English language
Step Subject Description
1 First synthesis The 30-question researcher-made questionnaire was prepared in the primary language
2 Original translation Translation of the questionnaire from the primary language into the English language by two certified translators (T1 and T2)
3 Second synthesis Both translators (T1 and T2) discussed the discrepancies between their versions until a consensus on the English language was achieved
4 First correlation Correlation testing between the English and the primary language using data gathered from 10 respondents (first trial)
5 Back translation Back-translation of the English to the primary language by a different set of certified translators (T3 and T4)
6 Third synthesis Both translators (T3 and T4) discussed the discrepancies between their versions until a consensus on the back-translation was achieved
7 Second correlation Correlation testing between the back-translated and the English language using data gathered from 10 respondents (second trial)
8 Expert panel The original, back- and correlation-translations were evaluated by 7 language experts, resulting in the genesis of the pre-final English
9 Evaluation The evaluation of the language through correlation testing between the English and the primary language was performed using Pearson's and Spearman's correlation tests. The correlation was valid for a p value of <0.05 and an r value of >0.3. The internal reliability was tested using Cronbach's alpha and was considered reliable when Cronbach's alpha was >0.7

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the correlation between the variables for a newly developed survey to confirm a pre-determined structure of the variables. In this study, the correlation coefficient was selected as the estimator of the effect size in the six general entrepreneurial characteristics. Cohen's interpretive system (1988) was used to interpret the results. Also, Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (V2.2.064) was used for the final analysis.

2.4. Data collection procedure

To scrutinize the effect of education using the STEM approach on an individual's entrepreneurial thinking characteristics, the study was done in three phases.

In the first phase, to ensure the homogeneity of the groups, the personality traits of the entrepreneurs for the experimental and comparison groups were investigated using the questionnaire of Kordnaeij et al. (2006).

In the second phase, the concepts of electrochemistry using the STEM approach were taught to the experimental groups in some sessions. Since the STEM approach covers a wide range of teaching methods, so far there is not one way to utilize a STEM approach in teaching and learning and the method of implementation can differ based on the conditions of the learners (Kim and Park, 2021). In this study, the teaching pattern of the STEM approach was designed and the role of the experimental group was clarified (Fig. 1).


image file: d2rp00011c-f1.tif
Fig. 1 Teaching pattern of the STEM approach and the role of the experimental group.

Using the STEM approach, electrochemical concepts were taught to the experimental group over several session. In the first session, the concept of the STEM and its implementation model (Fig. 1) were explained to the experimental group. In the second session, the basic concepts of electrochemistry (such as oxidation and reduction processes, electrochemical cells, cathodes, anodes, electrolysis, hydrolysis, and corrosion) were explained to the students. Then, they were asked to discuss the application of electrochemistry in real-life, the design of scientific projects or the producing of the maquette based on electrochemical concepts to improve the quality of life. In the third session, the participants of the experimental group were randomly divided into smaller groups consisting of four participants. The subgroups had two months to do three separate designs:

(1) Designing a car: its driving and braking forces should be provided by an electrochemical reaction.

(2) Designing a maquette based on the corrosion of metals and being able to observe the effect of the electrolyte on the corrosion process.

(3) Making a car that can produce hydrogen using oxidation and reduction equations in the electrolysis process.

After two months, the designs made by each subgroup were displayed to the other experimental groups. Then, the students expressed their ideas in order to change the designs by considering factors such as cost, access to materials, the level of user satisfaction with the design and its impact on the environment. The students of the comparison group were taught electrochemical concepts in a teacher-centered manner, regardless of the STEM approach. In order to have a homogeneous function and to avoid the teacher's interference, the experimental and comparison groups were trained by one teacher.

In the third phase, the position of each student in the experimental and comparison groups in general entrepreneurial traits, including self-confidence, thinking, risk-taking, leadership, creativity, and foresight, as well as their overall entrepreneurship scale, was determined. The amount of entrepreneurial skills was calculated using the researcher-made questionnaire for both comparison and experimental groups, separately, and compared with each other.

2.5. Data analysis procedure

In order to determine the normality or abnormality of distribution of the obtained data, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett tests were used in addition to the SPSS and LISREL software packages. The significant value, which was higher than 0.05 (p > 0.05) for all variables, was considered to be the criterion of normality of the data distribution. The independent t-test was used to compare the results of the experiment for both comparison and experimental groups with each other as well as the effect of gender in the development of entrepreneurial thinking competencies based on the STEM approach.

3. Results

3.1. Answer to the first research question

The average score was calculated as obtained from the Kordnaij questionnaire, and the independent t-test was used to compare the entrepreneur personality traits of the experimental and comparison groups with each other (Table 4).
Table 4 The independent t-test results and the comparison of average scores obtained from the Kordnaij questionnaire in experimental and comparison groups with each other
Group N Average score SD t df P-value
SD, standard deviation.
Comparison 169 382 0.64 −16.207 344 0.846
Experimental 186 376 0.68

As Table 4 shows, the values of the obtained data do not shows a statistically significant difference at the 99% confidence level (P > 0.01). Therefore, this demonstrated the homogeneity of students’ entrepreneurial personality traits before training.

Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the relationships between variables and questionnaire items. Before performing the confirmatory factor analysis, it is necessary to make sure that the data and sample size are suitable for factor analysis. KMO and Bartlett's tests are used for this purpose. Their values are given in Table 5.

Table 5 Results of questionnaire sampling adequacy tests
Sampling adequacy test Statistics value
Sig.: Significance.
KMO 0.825
Bartlett χ 2 1523.481
df 540
Sig. 0.000
Normalized image file: d2rp00011c-t2.tif 2.821

According to Table 5, the KMO test output is greater than 0.5 and the normalized χ2 obtained from Bartlett's test is between 1 and 3, so the existing correlations are suitable for factor analysis. The factor values between sub-constructs and items in standard mode are shown in Fig. 2.


image file: d2rp00011c-f2.tif
Fig. 2 Factor value diagram using confirmatory factor analysis in standard mode.

According to Fig. 2, standard values for all factors are greater than 0.3 and significant values for all items are greater than 1.96. These results show that the relationships are significant at the level of 0.05. The results of the correlation coefficient are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Correlation coefficient between the general entrepreneurial characteristics and the development of entrepreneurial abilities
General entrepreneurial characteristics Effect size Sig. Intensity
Sig.: Significance.
Self-confidence 0.352 0.018 Medium
Thinking skills 0.346 0.001 High
Risk-taking 0.375 0.002 High
Leadership 0.306 0.005 Low
Creativity 0.185 0.003 High
Foresight 0.382 0.004 Medium

According Table 6, there is a significant relationship between each of the six general entrepreneurial characteristics and the development of entrepreneurial abilities. As level of the correlation coefficient increases, the level of development of entrepreneurial abilities also increases.

The mean rating scores for each of the six general entrepreneurial characteristics and the overall entrepreneurship scale in the experimental and comparison groups were calculated and compared with each other. The results are shown in Table 7.

Table 7 The mean rating scores of six general entrepreneurial characteristics and overall entrepreneurship scale in comparison and experimental groups
Group Gender General entrepreneurial characteristics Overall entrepreneurship scale
Self-confidence Thinking skills Risk-taking Leadership Creativity Foresight
Comparison Male 3.4 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.3 2.6 ± 0.4 2.7 ± 0.7 3.1 ± 0.8 3.0 ± 1.1 2.9 ± 0.8
Female 3.2 ± 1.1 3.1 ± 0.5 2.7 ± 0.1 2.3 ± 0.9 2.7 ± 0.9 3.1 ± 0.9 2.8 ± 0.7
Experimental Male 4.6 ± 0.9 3.4 ± 0.4 4.1 ± 1.1 3.8 ± 0.9 3.9 ± 0.8 4.5 ± 0.9 4.1 ± 0.8
Female 3.7 ± 0.8 4.1 ± 0.8 4.7 ± 1.0 4.0 ± 0.8 3.4 ± 0.7 3.6 ± 0.8 3.9 ± 0.9

According to Table 7, the mean rating scores of the six general entrepreneurial characteristics are related to the risk-taking characteristic in the experimental group of females, 4.7, and the lowest average, 2.3, which is for the leadership characteristic in the female comparison group. As can be seen in this table, the highest mean rating entrepreneurship score was seen in the males of the experimental group, which was 4.1. The Table 7 also shows that the participants’ entrepreneurship thinking level of the experimental group is higher than the comparison group. In other words, the experimental group that received the STEM approach in their instruction had higher levels of entrepreneurship characteristics after the electrochemistry unit than those that were in the comparison group.

The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to measure the normality of the distribution of data that was obtained from the overall entrepreneurship scale (Table 8).

Table 8 The results of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
Group Gender Kolmogorov–Smirnov value Significant level
Overall entrepreneurship scale Experimental Male 1.364 0.072
Female 1.081 0.083
Comparison Male 1.297 0.065
Female 1.768 0.064

According to Table 8, significant values of the overall entrepreneurship scale in both the experimental and comparison groups were higher than 0.05. This indicates that the data are normally distributed. Therefore, parametric tests such as the t-test can be used to compare the means of the experimental and comparison groups.

To evaluate the effectiveness of the STEM approach on the experimental groups, an independent t-test was used to compare the entrepreneurial skills of the experimental and comparison groups with each other. The results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9 The independent t-test results and the comparison of general characteristics as well as the overall entrepreneurship scale in experimental and comparison groups with each other
Subject Group N Mean SD t df P-value
General entrepreneurial characteristics Self-confidence Comparison 169 3.30 0.90 −4.337 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 4.15 0.85
Thinking skills Comparison 169 2.95 0.40 −2.876 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 3.75 0.60
Risk-taking Comparison 169 2.65 0.25 −1.314 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 4.40 1.05
Leadership Comparison 169 2.50 0.80 −4.292 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 3.90 0.85
Creativity Comparison 169 2.90 0.85 −4.391 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 3.65 0.75
Foresight Comparison 169 3.05 1.00 −4.577 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 4.05 0.85
Overall entrepreneurship scale Comparison 169 2.85 0.75 −4.906 231 <0.001
Experimental 186 4.00 0.85

As Table 9 shows, the values of the obtained data in all categories are statistically significant at the 99% confidence level (P < 0.01). Therefore, it can be said that the group that received the STEM approach in their instruction had higher levels of entrepreneurship characteristics after the electrochemistry unit than those who were in the comparison group.

3.2. Answer to the second research question

The independent t-test was used to investigate the effect of gender on the development of entrepreneurial competencies based on the STEM approach. The results are shown in Table 10.
Table 10 The independent t-test results and the comparison of general characteristics as well as the overall entrepreneurship scale in male and female experimental groups
Subject Gender N Mean SD t df P-value
General entrepreneurial characteristic Self-confidence Female 86 3.71 0.82 −13.959 112 <0.001
Male 100 4.60 0.91
Thinking skills Female 86 4.09 0.80 8.564 112 <0.001
Male 100 3.42 0.41
Risk-taking Female 86 4.71 1.05 5.875 112 <0.001
Male 100 4.10 1.11
Leadership Female 86 4.05 0.81 −10.609 112 <0.001
Male 100 3.82 0.90
Creativity Female 86 3.44 0.72 1.148 112 <0.001
Male 100 3.90 0.81
Foresight Female 86 3.61 0.83 −10.756 112 <0.001
Male 100 4.52 0.91
Overall entrepreneurship scale Female 86 3.91 0.92 −15.502 112 <0.001
Male 100 4.13 0.80

According to Table 10, there was a significant association between gender and the development of entrepreneurial characteristics based on the STEM approach at the 99% confidence level. The values of the overall entrepreneurship scales of the female and male participants were found to be 3.91 and 4.13, respectively [t(112) = −15.502; P < 0.001]. In light of these findings, it can be argued that there is a significant difference between the female and male participants in terms of their overall entrepreneurship scale. According to the obtained results, although the value of the overall entrepreneurship scale for men is higher than for women, in the three sub-scales, including thinking skills, risk-taking, and leadership, these values are higher for females than they are for men.

4. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of education using the STEM approach and the gender of the learners on the development of the students’ entrepreneurial abilities. The first investigation showed that when the STEM approach is used as the main method of teaching, the overall scale of students’ entrepreneurship can increase. The result of entrepreneurship education is consistent with the findings of Urbano et al. (2019), which indicated the important role of environmental factors, including educational factors, in entrepreneurship. The findings are also in line with ChanMin et al. (2015) on the role of the STEM educational approach in the learning and employment of students. Marques et al. (2018), by examining the factors affecting the formation of entrepreneurship in students, showed that curriculum elements and indicators of the course content, including the teaching methods, are effective in the formation of entrepreneurship, which was consistent with the results of the present study.

According to the results of the t-tests, there was a significant difference between all the general characteristics of entrepreneurship as well as the overall scale of the entrepreneurship of students who were trained using the STEM approach compared with students who were not taught using this approach. Abraham (2020) prioritized the most important factors that influence people to become entrepreneurs and showed that there is a correlation between the variables of their ability, such as leadership, and entrepreneurship. These abilities can be strengthened with proper education. In a similar study, Byun et al. (2018) showed that proper education can increase the level of entrepreneurial creativity in people. The results of this part of the present study are in line with the findings of Becker and Park (2011), which indicate the positive role of the STEM approach as a new educational method in establishing semantic connections between different fields for solving real problems, and nurturing entrepreneurial and innovative people.

In another part of the present study, the effect of gender on the level of entrepreneurial competencies created in trained learners taught using the STEM approach was examined. The results showed that the learner's gender can have a significant effect on the general characteristics of entrepreneurship, including self-confidence, thinking skills, risk-taking, leadership, creativity, and foresight. According to Table 10, the gender variable does significantly affect the development of the general entrepreneurial characteristics based on the STEM approach. The present study showed that the males displayed a higher overall entrepreneurship score than the females based on education using the STEM approach. This finding is parallel to the findings of some other studies. In studies carried out by Gedic (2013) and Pesout and Nietfeld (2021), it was found that the mean score of the male students was considerably higher than that of the female students. This finding is consistent with the results of a study by Abraham (2020), which indicates the important effect of gender on entrepreneurship. The results of the present study are also in line with the findings of Reinholz et al. (2019). By examining the correlation coefficient model, they showed that the entrepreneurial performance and creativity of chemistry students who have been trained using the STEM approach are influenced by factors such as the gender and ethnicity of learners. This result can complete the research of Askarifard et al. (2017). They stated that despite similar personality traits of males and females, the entrepreneurial thinking growth of females is lower than for males. Though the greater impact of education based on teaching using the STEM approach may be on the overall characteristics of male entrepreneurs, females are higher on some subsections and males are higher on others. According to Table 10, females are higher than males in the three sub-scale categories of thinking skills, risk-taking, and leadership. Therefore, considering the importance of entrepreneurship in men and women, it is recommended that instructors provide education using the STEM approach for both males and females differently and with regard to individual differences.

5. Conclusion

The impact of education using the STEM approach on the development of students’ entrepreneurial thinking abilities is investigated for the first time using a quasi-experimental method. The results reveal that when the STEM approach is used as the main method of teaching, the general entrepreneurship characteristics of students can increase. The relative amount of the increased overall entrepreneurial abilities scale via using the STEM approach is larger by a factor of 0.69 ± 0.03. Analysis of the effect of the learner's gender on the level of entrepreneurial competencies created using the STEM approach shows that the learner's gender can have a significant effect on the general characteristics of entrepreneurship, including self-confidence, thinking skills, risk-taking, leadership, creativity, and foresight. The score on the overall entrepreneurship scale in males is is higher than that for females who were taught using the STEM approach. The obtained features of the STEM approach suggest it as a possible candidate for entrepreneurship education.

6. Suggestions

The present study showed that the STEM approach can provide the necessary platform for the development of students; entrepreneurial abilities and make them ready for entering the field of entrepreneurship. In order for this new educational approach to do well, the following suggestions are presented:

(1) The STEM educational approach requires professional skills in several fields and the ability to interact between fields. Professors and teachers play important roles in the success of this educational approach. Therefore, in-service training can be really useful.

(2) Achieving the entrepreneurial thinking goals of the STEM approach is reflected in the practical implementation of its projects. Therefore, the contribution of industrial centers and universities should increase. It is recommended that universities and industry owners contract with each other for more success.

Abbreviation

STEM: Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

Ethical statement

All participants in this study were anonymized. Informed consent was obtained verbally before participation. The consent was audio-recorded in the presence of an independent witness. All participants consented to their participation in this research project.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. Abraham M., (2020), Gender-role incongruity and audience based gender bias: An examination of networking among entrepreneurs, Admin. Sci. Q., 65(1), 151–180 DOI:10.1177/0001839219832813.
  2. Adobor H. and Daneshfar A., (2006), Management simulation: Determining their effectiveness, J. Manage. Dev., 25(2), 151–168.
  3. Alshebami A. S., Al-Jubari I. and Alyoyssef I. Y., (2020), Enterpreneurial education as a predictor of community college of Abqaiq students' entrepreneurial intention, Manage. Sci. Lett., 10(15), 3605–3612 DOI:10.5267/j.msl.2020.6.033.
  4. Askarifard K., Ebrahimi A. and Alavi S. M., (2017), Providing an educational model for entrepreneurship development of entrepreneurial abilities in students through the mediation of personality traits, Q. Entrep. Dev., 11(1), 101–120.
  5. Audretsch D. B., Erik E., Lehmann E. E. and Schenkenhofer J., (2020) A context-choice model of niche entrepreneurship, Entrep. Theor. Pract., 45(5), 1276–1303 DOI:10.1177/1042258720936042.
  6. Baharin N., Kamarudin N. and Manaf U. K. A., (2018), Integrating STEM education approach in enhancing higher order thinking skills, Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci., 8(7), 810–822 DOI:10.6007/IJARBSS/v8-i7/4421.
  7. Bandera C., Collins R. and Passerini K., (2018), Risky business: Experiential learning, information and communications technology, and risk-taking attitudes in entrepreneurship education, Int. J. Manage. Educ., 16(2), 224–238 DOI:10.1016/j.ijme.2018.02.006.
  8. Becker K. and Park K., (2011), Effect of investigative approaches among science, technology, engineering and mathematics subject on students learning: A meta-analysis, J. STEM Educ., 12(5), 23–37.
  9. Beliaeva T., Laskovaia A. and Shirkova G., (2017), Entrepreneurial learning and entrepreneurial intentions, Eur. J. Int. Manage., 11(5), 606–632 DOI:10.1504/EJIM.2017.086694.
  10. Bell R. and Loon M., (2015), The impact of critical thinking disposition on learning using business simulation, Int. J. Manage. Educ., 13(2), 1–9 DOI:10.1016/j.ijme.2015.10.003.
  11. Belz F. M. and Binder J. K., (2017), Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model, Bus. Strat. Environ., 26(1), 1–17 DOI:10.1002/bse.1887.
  12. Bergman B. J. and McMullen J. S., (2021), Helping entrepreneurs help themselves: A review and relational research agenda on entrepreneurial support organizations, Entrep. Theor. Pract., 21(3) DOI:10.1177/10422587211028736.
  13. Bodolica V., Spraggon M. and Badi H., (2021), Extracurricular activities and social entrepreneurial leadership of graduating youth in universities from the Middle East, Int. J. Manage. Educ., 19(2), 100489 DOI:10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100489.
  14. Breugst N. and Shepherd D. A., (2016), If you Fight with Me, I'll Get Mad! A social model of entrepreneurial affect, Entrep. Theor. Pract., 41(3) 379–418 DOI:10.1111/etap.12211.
  15. Byun C., Sung C., Park J. and Choi A., (2018), A study on the effectiveness of entrepreneurship education programs in higher education institutions, J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex, 4(3), 26–35 DOI:10.3390/joitmc4030026.
  16. Camelo-Ordaz C., Dianez-Gonzalez J. P. and Ruiz-Navarro J., (2016), The influence of gender on entrepreneurial intention: The mediating role of perceptual factors, Bus. Res. Q., 19(2), 261–277 DOI:10.1016/j.brq.2016.03.001.
  17. ChanMin K., Dongho K., Jiangmei Y., Roger B. H., Prashant D. and Chi N. T., (2015), Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, Learn. Teach., Comput. Educ., 91(25), 14–31 DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005.
  18. Cohen J., (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (Seconded), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  19. Corlu M. S., (2014), Introducing STEM education: Implications for educating our teacher for the age of innovation, Educ. Sci., 171(39), 125–138, https://hdl.handle.net/11693/13203.
  20. Cronbach L. J. and Shavelson R. J., (2004), My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures, Educ. Psychol. Meas., 64(3), 391–418 DOI:10.1177/0013164404266386.
  21. Dou X., Zhu X., Zhang J. Q. and Wang J., (2019), Outcomes of entrepreneurship education in China, J. Bus. Res., 103(3), 338–347 DOI:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.058.
  22. Entrialgo M. and Iglesias V., (2020), Entrepreneurial intentions among university students: The moderating role of creativity, Eur. Manage. Rev., 17(2), 529–542 DOI:10.1111/emre.12386.
  23. Fernandez D., Arruti A., Markuerkiaga L. and Seanz N., (2018), The entrepreneurial university: A selection of good practices, J. Entrep. Educ., 21(3), 1–17.
  24. Gedic H., (2013), Social studies teacher candidates’ critical thinking skills, Procedia – Soc. Behav. Sci., 93 (1), 1020–1024 DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.09.322.
  25. Global Entrepreneurship Index, The Global Entrepreneurship and Development Institute, 2017.
  26. Hahn D., Minola T., Bosio G. and Cassia L., (2020), The impact of entrepreneurship education on university students' entrepreneurial skills, Small Bus. Econ., 55(1), 257–282 DOI:10.1007/s11187-019-00143.
  27. Hardy J. G., Sdepanian S. and Wright K. L., (2021), Potential for chemistry in multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary teaching activities in higher education, J. Chem. Educ. DOI:10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c01363.
  28. Ho M. T., La V. P., Nguyen M. H., Pham T. H., Vuong T. T., Vuong H. M., Pham H. H., Hoang A. D. and Vuong Q. H., (2020), An analytical view on STEM education and outcomes: Examples of the social gap and gender disparity in Vietnam, Child. Youth Serv. Rev., 119, 1–33 DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105650.
  29. Ieves A., (2011), Entrep. education as a new model for leadership education, J. Leadership Stud., 5(2), 85–88 DOI:10.1002/jls.20225.
  30. Johnson M. P. and Schaltegger S., (2019), Entrepreneurship for sustainable development: A review and multilevel causal mechanism framework, Entrep. Theor. Pract., 44(6), 1141–1173 DOI:10.1177/1042258719885368.
  31. Kenney-Benson G. A., Pomerantz E. M., Ryan A. M. and Patrick H., (2006), Sex differences in math performance: The role of children's approach to schoolwork, Dev. Psychol., 42(1), 11–26 DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.11.
  32. Kim J. Y. and Park M. J., (2021), Investigation of critical factors on corporate entrepreneurship, J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ., 13(1), 1–25 DOI:10.1108/JEEE-11-2019-0175.
  33. Kordnaeij A., Zali M. R., Hooman H. A. and Shams S., (2006), A Tool for Measuring the Personality Traits of Iranian Entrepreneurs, Tehran: Office for Publishing Science Works, Tarbiat Modarres University.
  34. Krejcie R. V. and Morgan D. W., (1970), Determination size for research activities, Educ. Psychol. Meas., 30(3), 607–610 DOI:10.1177/001316447003000308.
  35. Laguia A., Moriano J. A. and Corgievski M. J., (2019), A psychosocial study of self-perceived creativity and entrepreneurial intentions in a sample of university students, Think. Skills Creat., 31(1), 44–57 DOI:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.11.004.
  36. Lotfi M., Farhadi A. and Ravaei S., (2019), Designing a skilled-based model for technical and vocational students using foundation data theory, Karafan Q. Res. J., 46(2), 71–100.
  37. Marques C. S. E., Santos G., Galvao A., Mascarenhas C. and Justino E., (2018), Entrepreneurship education gender and family background as antecedents on the entrepreneurial orientation of university students, Int. J. Innov. Sci., 10(1), 58–70 DOI:10.1108/IJIS-07-2017-0067.
  38. Matheerne C. F., Bendickson J. S., Santos S. C. and Taylor E. C., (2020), Making sense of entrepreneurial intent: A look at gender and entrepreneurial personal theory, Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res., 26(5), 989–1009 DOI:10.1108/IJEBR-08-2019-0475.
  39. Mueller S. L. and Dato-On M. C., (2013), A cross cultural study of genderrole orientation and entrepreneurial self-efficacy, Int. Entrep. Manage. J. 9 (1), 1–20 DOI:10.1007/s11365-011-0187.
  40. Otache I., Edopkolor J. E. and Okolie U. C., (2021), Entrepreneurial self-confidence, perceived desirability and feasibility of hospitality business and entrepreneurial intentions of hospitality management technology students, Int. J. Manage. Educ., 19(2), 100507 DOI:10.1016/j.ijme.2021.100507.
  41. Panda S., (2018), Constraints faced by women entrepreneurs in developing countries: Review and ranking, Gender Manage., 33(4), 315–331 DOI:10.1108/GM-01-2017-0003.
  42. Pesout O. and Nietfeld J. L., (2021), How creative am I? Examining judgments and predictors of creative performance, Think. Skills Creat., 40, 100836 DOI:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100836.
  43. Rabin J. M., Burgasser A., Bussey T. J., Eggers J., Lo S. M., Stevens L., Seethaler. S. and Weizman H., (2021), Interdisciplinary conversations in STEM education: can faculty understand each other better than their students do? International Journal of STEM Education, 8(11), 2–10 DOI:10.1186/s40594-020-00266-9.
  44. Reinholz D. L., Ngai C., Quan G., Pilgrim M. E., Corbo J. C., & Finkelstein N., (2019), Fostering sustainable improvements in science educations: An analysis through four frames, Sci. Educ., 103(5), 1125–1150 DOI:10.1002/sce.21526.
  45. Rhisiart M. and Evans D. J., (2016), The impact of foresight on entrepreneurship: The Wales 2010 case study, Technol. Forecast. Soc., 102, 112–119 DOI:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.010.
  46. Riihimaki C. A. and Viskupic K., (2020), Motivators and inhibitors to change: Why and how geoscience faculty modify their course content and teaching methods, J. Geosci. Educ., 68(2), 115–132 DOI:10.1080/10899995.2019.1628590.
  47. Roberts A. and Cantu D., (2012), Applying STEM Instructional Strategies to Design and Technology Curriculum, PATT conference, Stockholm: Linkoping University.
  48. Robinson J. P. and Lubienski S. T., (2011), The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings, Am. Educ. Res. J., 48(2), 268–302 DOI:10.3102/0002831210372249.
  49. Sarasvathy S. D., (2021) The middle class of business: Endurance as a dependent variable in entrepreneurship, Entrep. Theor. Pract., 45(5) 1054–1082 DOI:10.1177/10422587211015983.
  50. Shettle C., Roey S., Mordica J., Perkins R., Nord C., Teodorovic J. and Brown J., (2007), The Nation's Report Card [TM]: America's High School Graduates. NCES 2007-467, National Center for Education Statistics.
  51. Siekmann G. and Korbel P., (2016), Defining STEM Skills: Review and Synthesis of the Literature, Support Document 2, NCVER, Adelaide. ©Commonwealth of Australia.
  52. Tantawy M., Herbert K., McNally J. J., Mengel T., Piperpoulos P. and Foord D., (2021), Bringing creativity back to entrepreneurship education: Creative self-efficacy, creative process engagement, and entrepreneurial intentions, J. Bus. Ventur. Insights, 15, 239 DOI:10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00239.
  53. Toghraei M. T., Mirvahedi S. S. and Hashemi S., (2019), Designing the entrepreneurial education model, J. Educ. Innov., 18(71), 59–82.
  54. UNESCO, (2020), Women in Science, retrieved from http://uis.unesco.org/en/topic/women-science.
  55. Urbano D., Aparicio S., Audretsch D., (2019), Twenty-five years of research on institutions, entrepreneurship and economic growth, Small Bus. Econ., 53 (2), 21–49 DOI:10.1007/s11187-018-0038-0.
  56. Vachliotis T., Salta K., Tzougraki C., (2021), Developing basic systems thinking skills for deeper understanding of chemistry concepts in high school students, Think. Skills Creat., 41, 100881 DOI:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100881.
  57. Webb J. W., (2021), A system-level view of institutions: Considerations for entrepreneurship and poverty, J. Dev. Entrep., 26(2), 1–10 DOI:10.1142/S1084946721500102.
  58. Wibowo A., Saptono A. and Suparno A., (2018), Does teachers' creativity impact on vocational students' entrepreneurial intention? J. Entrep. Educ., 21(3), 1–12.
  59. Zulfiqar S., Sarwar B., Aziz S., Chandia K. E. and Khan M. K., (2019), An analysis of influence of business simulation games on business school students' attitude and intention toward entrepreneurial activities, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 57(1), 106–130 DOI:10.1177/0735633117746746.
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2022