Perceptions of the Promotion of Entrepreneurial Competence in the Education System Among Education Professionals

Abstract

Teacher entrepreneurship is a fundamental aspect of today’s education. Entrepreneurial Competence (EC), as established in Organic Law 3/2020, which amends Organic Law 2/2006, on Education, and reinforced by Law 14/2013, on Support for Entrepreneurs and Their Internationalization, is key to preparing students for the challenges of the 21st century. This study follows a quantitative observational design, with data collected through a questionnaire administered to over 600 education professionals, structured into three blocks and fourteen dimensions. The research is divided into three parts, corresponding to the three blocks of the questionnaire. This article focuses on the first block, which aims to evaluate teachers’ assessment of EC and to analyse their perception of the most accessible and effective options for adequately developing this competence in educational centres. Results show that all participant groups generally rated EC highly, but perceptions differ based on gender, age, and training. Teachers with EC training express greater confidence, while those without training report more challenges. School leaders rate EC more favourably, likely due to their involvement in institutional policies. The main obstacles identified are insufficient teacher training and inadequate resources. The study emphasises the importance of enhancing teacher training and adopting active methodologies to integrate entrepreneurship into education. It also underscores practical implications for educational policy, emphasising curriculum reforms, resource allocation, and stronger school–business collaboration to foster an entrepreneurial mindset.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship and leadership are essential in today’s education system, as they foster autonomy, creativity, and adaptability in a constantly changing environment (Lopez et al., 2019; Sierra, 2016; Sopo et al., 2016). Until recently, entrepreneurship was thought to be a skill that could neither be taught nor learned. However, several studies have shown that it is possible to teach and learn entrepreneurship in different contexts and through different methodologies (Paños, 2017; Rivadeneira-Moreira, 2023).

In this sense, Entrepreneurial Competence has been recognised as one of the eight key competences within the Spanish educational curriculum, in accordance with Organic Law 3/2020, of 29 December, which modifies Organic Law 2/2006, of 3 May, on Education (LOMLOE), which underlines the need to foster in students skills such as creativity, problem solving and decision-making (Head of State, 2020; Ministry of Education, Vocational Training and Sports, 2021). Additionally, Spain’s commitment to entrepreneurship education is reinforced by Law 14/2013, of 27 September, on Support for Entrepreneurs and their Internationalization. This law mandates the inclusion of entrepreneurship-related objectives, competencies, and evaluation criteria across all educational levels, from Primary Education to Vocational Training. It promotes the development of entrepreneurial skills such as creativity, teamwork, self-confidence, and critical thinking while fostering knowledge on business creation, ethical entrepreneurship, and equal opportunities. Universities are encouraged to support student-led business initiatives, while teacher training programmes incorporate entrepreneurship education to equip educators with the skills needed to foster an entrepreneurial mindset in students (Head of State, 2013).

Beyond Spain, many countries have developed policies and frameworks to promote Entrepreneurial Competence in education. The European Union has introduced the EntreComp framework, which provides a common reference for integrating entrepreneurship education across member states (Bacigalupo et al., 2016). Estonia, widely recognised for its excellence in education, has integrated entrepreneurship into its national curriculum, placing a strong emphasis on digital competencies, technology-driven learning, and innovation-oriented teaching approaches. The country’s Education Strategy 2021–2035 highlights the integration of entrepreneurship education across different levels, ensuring that students acquire problem-solving skills, adaptability, and entrepreneurial thinking (Ministry of Education and Research of Estonia, 2021). Additionally, the United Kingdom actively promotes entrepreneurship through higher education institutions. Universities across the UK offer student start-up programmes, business incubators, and specific funding initiatives to foster entrepreneurial mindsets (Bell, 2023). Similarly, Finland promotes project-based learning and interdisciplinary approaches, ensuring that students develop entrepreneurial mindsets through real-world problem-solving and hands-on initiatives (Cedefop, 2023).

Beyond Europe, other regions have also implemented structured policies to develop Entrepreneurial Competence in education. In Asia, Singapore, for example, has adopted a strategic approach to fostering entrepreneurial innovation by embedding entrepreneurship education across various sectors. The national vision of “Thinking Schools, Learning Nation” aims to cultivate a culture of innovation and enterprise within educational centres, fundamentally transforming the education system (Tee, 2005; Rangaswamy et al., 2024). In America, countries like Chile have made significant progress in integrating entrepreneurship education into their national curricula, emphasising pedagogical approaches that foster innovation and entrepreneurial thinking within educational centres (Kara et al., 2023).

For these reasons, this study focuses on the importance of developing Entrepreneurial Competence in the educational sphere, with emphasis on its valuation and promotion inside and outside educational centres. This study examines the integration of Entrepreneurial Competence in educational institutions and its impact on students. In this context, the objectives of this article are, on the one hand, to evaluate the value that teachers attribute to the Entrepreneurial Competence, identifying the importance they attach to the principles that it comprises, and, on the other, to analyse teachers’ perceptions of the most accessible and effective options for promoting the development of the Entrepreneurial Competence in educational centres. To further explore these objectives, this study seeks to answer the following research questions: (1) How do teachers perceive the importance of Entrepreneurial Competence in the education system? (2) What are the most accessible and effective strategies for developing Entrepreneurial Competence in educational institutions?

Entrepreneurship education, in this context, is not limited to business creation, but is understood as a comprehensive training process that promotes autonomy, creativity, and the ability to innovate in different areas of personal and professional life (Chaux & Ortiz, 2021; Uribe, 2017). Educational entrepreneurship can be approached from three key focuses: educating about entrepreneurship, i.e., teaching the concepts and strategies related to entrepreneurship; educating for entrepreneurship, which involves the development of practical skills so that students can apply the knowledge acquired in concrete projects; and educating through entrepreneurship, which involves learning based on real experiences, where students face challenges and opportunities within the entrepreneurial field (Heinonen & Hytti, 2010; Kyrö & Carrier, 2005; Sanchez et al., 2017). Since entrepreneurship education includes several dimensions (about, for, and through), and once Entrepreneurial Competence is assumed as a focus of this work, this study primarily emphasizes the “for” and “through” forms of entrepreneurship education, especially the “for” approach (Kakouris & Liargovas, 2021).

In this process, the role of the teacher is essential. So-called “teacherpreneurs” play a crucial role in integrating active methodologies that foster a sense of initiative and entrepreneurship in students. These methodologies favour practical and experiential learning and, at the same time, help students to face situations that stimulate their creativity and problem-solving skills (Paños, 2017). Teachers act as guides, encouraging experimentation, teamwork and critical reflection, key elements for the development of Entrepreneurial Competence (Arruti, 2016; Masias et al., 2022).

Consequently, this study examines the state of entrepreneurship education in educational centres, assessing both the progress made and the barriers that may exist in its implementation. It also provides practical recommendations to improve the integration of entrepreneurship education in the education system, highlighting its importance for the formation of citizens with innovative and adaptive skills, capable of facing the challenges of the 21st century. The promotion of Entrepreneurial Competence contributes to the formation of citizens who are entrepreneurial, resilient, creative, and prepared to lead and transform society in an increasingly complex and globalised world (Batista et al., 2017; Fontaines-Ruiz et al., 2016).

2. Materials and Methods

This research is a quantitative, cross-sectional, observational study divided into three parts. Data were collected at a single point in time with no follow-up of participants. No manipulation of variables or intervention in the lives of the subjects was carried out, but their characteristics were observed and recorded (Cvetkovic-Vega et al., 2021). It is a descriptive cross-sectional study, which aims to characterise a population without establishing causal relationships and is particularly useful in psychology and psycho-pedagogy (Anguera-Argilaga, 2011; Buendia et al., 1998).

2.1. Population and Sample

The sample consisted of 623 education professionals from various regions: Western Europe (Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and Portugal), Eastern Europe (Poland and Romania), western Asia (Turkey) and South America (Chile).

Participants were selected using non-probabilistic convenience sampling, based on their accessibility and availability, without applying random criteria or researcher judgement. Participation was entirely voluntary and anonymous, ensuring ethical compliance.

The study surveyed education professionals, including directors, teachers, and researchers. Specifically, the sample included 18 directors, 63 research staff, 130 primary school teachers, 9 counsellors, 30 secondary school teachers, 296 university teachers, 11 secretaries, and 66 persons classified under “other” roles.

2.2. Variables

The final questionnaire of this research was structured in 3 blocks, 14 dimensions, and a total of 72 items. Each item of the questionnaire was answered using a 5-point Likert scale, resulting in a total of 71 ordinal variables, corresponding to the items of the questionnaire. Item 51 was not included within any dimension, as its purpose was to ask respondents to rank the eight key competences according to their level of development, assigning a 1 to the least developed and an 8 to the best developed.

For the quantitative analysis, dependent variables were created from the responses, calculated by summing the individual item scores and dividing by the number of items in each category to standardise the values. A total dependent variable (S1_72) representing the participant’s overall agreement with the 72 items of the questionnaire was constructed by dividing the total sum by 71 (because item 51 was not included in any dimension). In addition, specific dependent variables were generated for each block of the questionnaire: S1_18 for block B1, dividing the sum of the items in this block by 18; S19_50 for block B2, dividing by 31; and S52_72 for block B3, dividing by 20.

On the other hand, 10 independent variables, mainly polytomous, were established. Nationality was categorised into nine options: German, Chilean, Spanish, Irish, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Turkish. Age was distributed into five ranges: 25 years or less, 26–35 years, 36–45 years, 46–55 years, and over 56 years. Gender was set as a dichotomous variable with the options male and female. The level of qualification was classified into four categories: doctorate, bachelor, master, and other. Teaching experience was segmented into four groups: 0 to 5 years, 6 to 15 years, 16 to 25 years, and more than 25 years. Employment status included six categories: grant holder, permanent contract, temporary contract, civil servant, interim, and other. The position held in the centre was differentiated into eight options: director, research staff, teacher, guidance counsellor, secondary school teacher, university teacher, secretary, and other. In the case of teachers, six specialties were distinguished: early childhood education, primary education, music, hearing and language, therapeutic pedagogy, and physical education. The type of educational centre was also identified, differentiating between special education centre, school, high school, college, university, and other. The ownership of the centre was classified as subsidised, private, or public. Finally, training in Entrepreneurial Competence was analysed, differentiating between those who never received it, those who obtained it during their work experience, those who acquired it at university, and those who obtained it by other means.

In this article, we analysed the existence of statistically significant differences for the most decisive factors in this research: gender, age, position held in the centre, and training in Entrepreneurial Competence.

2.3. Instrument

For the present research, a questionnaire on Entrepreneurial Competence in education was designed specifically for this research. The design of the questionnaire was meticulously adapted to the characteristics of the object of study, considering factors such as the duration of the process, the resources available, and the rigour and quality required in the data collection.

The questionnaire was submitted to expert judges consisting of sixteen university specialists from different professional categories: two professors, two full professors, five associate professors, three assistant professors, three associate professors, and one research trainee. Lawshe’s (1975) Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to assess the relevance of the items. In this process, no item scored below 0.88, so no questions were removed from the initial questionnaire. A total of 72.22% of the items achieved a perfect CVR of 1, while 25% achieved a CVR of 0.94 and 2.77% achieved a CVR of 0.88, indicating high content validity.

The questionnaire was also validated through exploratory factor analysis, with the application of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The KMO results were 0.651, 0.562, and 0.819 for the three blocks of the questionnaire, indicating sample adequacy for the factor analysis. Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed a level of significance of 0.000 in all cases, validating the feasibility of the factor analysis (Garcia et al., 2020; Mendez & Rondon, 2012).

Factor analysis revealed different levels of total variance explained: Block 1—57.398% (moderately allowable); Block 2—77.771% (allowable); Block 3—74.323% (allowable) (Hair et al., 2010; Rietveld & Van Hout, 1993).

Finally, the reliability of the questionnaire was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (α). The index obtained for the total questionnaire was 0.846, indicating high internal consistency. At the dimension level, values ranged from 0.546 to 0.948, with particularly high scores for “team coordination” (α = 0.948), “independence and innovation” (α = 0.928) and “pedagogical leadership” (α = 0.908) (Kerling & Lee, 2002).

It is therefore clear that the questionnaire was validated as a reliable and appropriate instrument for the assessment of Entrepreneurial Competence in the educational field.

2.4. Procedure

A questionnaire was designed and used to measure the development of Entrepreneurial Competence in teachers, due to the lack of a suitable questionnaire. The questionnaire was administered remotely via Google Forms, with no time limit, although participants generally took 20–25 min to complete it. Anonymity and confidentiality of data were always guaranteed.

Since the data did not follow a normal distribution, non-parametric statistical methods were chosen, using resampling techniques through Monte Carlo simulation and the bootstrap procedure (Pelea, 2018). To determine statistically significant differences, an ANOVA analysis for independent samples was applied to each variable or factor in the research. F-statistic values, p-significance level, and effect size (measured by eta squared) were calculated using multivariate general linear model analysis in SPSS version 26. Post hoc tests were performed with assumptions of unequal variances, using several statistics (Tamhane’s T2, Dunnett’s T3, Games–Howell, and Dunnett’s C), whose results were consistent and helped to determine the direction of the effects in the ANOVA tables of the factors analysed.

3. Results

The results are specified according to the objectives of the first part of the research, corresponding to Block 1 of the questionnaire:

• To evaluate how teachers value the Entrepreneurial Competence, identifying the importance they attribute to the principles that make it up.
• To analyse teachers’ perceptions of the most accessible options for adequately developing Entrepreneurial Competence in educational centres.

Table 1. Descriptions of the items after the application of the questionnaire.

Block	Dim	Item	Media	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	SD	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
B1 = Entrepreneurial spirit	D1 = EC assessment	P1	4.47	4.43	4.51	0.554	0.531	0.578
		P2	4.21	4.15	4.26	0.709	0.674	0.743
		P3	2.63	2.55	2.72	1.164	1.122	1.204
		P4	3.71	3.64	3.77	0.853	0.824	0.879
		P5	2.91	2.83	3.00	1.091	1.051	1.130
		P6	3.93	3.87	4.00	0.820	0.775	0.862
		P7	4.06	3.99	4.13	0.894	0.809	0.974
		P8	4.52	4.46	4.57	0.646	0.587	0.707
		P9	4.01	3.95	4.08	0.857	0.807	0.910
		P10	4.37	4.31	4.42	0.716	0.683	0.748
		S1_10	3.881	3.842	3.925	0.530	0.505	0.554
	D2 = EC promotion	P11	4.24	4.19	4.30	0.658	0.609	0.703
		P12	4.29	4.25	4.34	0.563	0.536	0.590
		P13	3.73	3.66	3.80	0.874	0.832	0.913
		P14	4.24	4.18	4.29	0.674	0.645	0.700
		P15	3.99	3.95	4.03	0.515	0.481	0.549
		P16	4.12	4.07	4.17	0.632	0.584	0.680
		P17	3.98	3.93	4.04	0.694	0.666	0.721
		P18	4.16	4.09	4.23	0.876	0.805	0.945
		S11_18	4.094	4.063	4.127	0.404	0.381	0.425
B1		S1_18	3.976	3.946	4.010	0.408	0.390	0.424

Source: own elaboration.

shows the descriptive statistics for the items of the first and second dimension of the questionnaire, as well as the total of the items in Block 1 and the questionnaire.

Table 1 shows that the mean score for the first dimension was M = 3.881, SD = 0.530. The mean score for the second dimension was M = 4.094, SD = 0.404. The mean score for the first block of the questionnaire was M = 3.976, SD = 0.408. The average score for the whole questionnaire was M = 4.294, SD = 0.370.

3.1. Analysis of Incidence by Sex

The total number of respondents by sex of the participating sample was equally distributed: 312 men and 311 women. In other words, the distribution of the sample by sex was similar, as the percentage of men (50.08%) was of the same order of magnitude as the percentage of women (49.92%).

Table 2. Sex count of the participants.

Sex
Block	Dim		H = Male					M = Female
B1	D1	Item	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
		P1	0	0	7	167	138	0	0	11	128	172
		P2	0	0	66	153	93	1	0	33	139	138
		P3	48	128	46	87	3	64	96	42	93	16
		P4	0	0	182	83	47	0	4	150	46	111
		P5	21	125	67	88	11	13	133	33	103	29
		P6	1	7	109	146	49	3	9	51	136	112
		P7	7	18	5	212	70	18	4	10	178	101
		P8	0	8	1	132	171	0	8	3	114	186
		P9	1	5	81	143	82	4	14	57	120	116
		P10	0	0	57	135	120	0	1	27	88	195
	D2	P11	0	5	35	183	89	0	6	9	167	129
		P12	0	0	24	201	87	0	0	10	171	130
		P13	0	26	102	122	62	0	24	92	131	64
		P14	0	0	50	166	96	0	0	35	140	136
		P15	0	0	48	240	24	0	0	38	218	55
		P16	0	3	36	208	65	0	12	11	203	85
		P17	0	0	85	163	64	0	0	70	160	81
		P18	3	0	31	130	148	13	3	61	137	97

Source: own elaboration.

shows the distribution of the sample by sex, i.e., H = male and M = female, in the first block of the questionnaire. Moreover, Figure 1 illustrates the mean scores for the 18 items according to the sex of the participants.

To analyse whether there are differences according to sex in the questionnaire, an ANOVA for independent samples was performed. The results are shown in

Table 3. ANOVA for independent samples by sex.

	H = Male				M = Female
Item	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P1	4.42	0.54	4.42	4.42	4.52	0.57	4.52	4.52	4.879	0.028	0.008	H < M
P2	4.09	0.71	4.08	4.09	4.33	0.69	4.33	4.33	18.594	0.000	0.029	H < M
P3	2.58	1.08	2.58	2.58	2.68	1.24	2.68	2.69	1.185	0.277	0.002
P4	3.57	0.74	3.56	3.57	3.85	0.93	3.85	3.85	17.408	0.000	0.027	H < M
P5	2.82	1.03	2.81	2.82	3.01	1.14	3.00	3.01	4.709	0.030	0.008	H < M
P6	3.75	0.75	3.75	3.76	4.11	0.85	4.11	4.11	30.798	0.000	0.047	H < M
P7	4.03	0.82	4.02	4.03	4.09	0.96	4.09	4.10	0.891	0.346	0.001
P8	4.49	0.64	4.49	4.50	4.54	0.65	4.53	4.54	0.702	0.402	0.001
P9	3.96	0.78	3.96	3.96	4.06	0.92	4.06	4.06	2.105	0.147	0.003
P10	4.20	0.73	4.20	4.20	4.53	0.66	4.53	4.54	35.305	0.000	0.054	H < M
P11	4.14	0.66	4.14	4.14	4.35	0.63	4.35	4.35	15.685	0.000	0.025	H < M
P12	4.20	0.56	4.20	4.20	4.39	0.55	4.38	4.39	17.044	0.000	0.027	H < M
P13	3.71	0.88	3.70	3.71	3.76	0.87	3.75	3.76	0.520	0.471	0.001
P14	4.15	0.67	4.15	4.15	4.32	0.67	4.32	4.33	10.963	0.001	0.017	H < M
P15	3.92	0.47	3.92	3.92	4.05	0.54	4.05	4.06	10.323	0.001	0.016	H < M
P16	4.07	0.60	4.07	4.08	4.16	0.66	4.16	4.16	2.964	0.086	0.005
P17	3.93	0.69	3.93	3.94	4.04	0.70	4.03	4.04	3.420	0.065	0.005
P18	4.35	0.74	4.34	4.35	3.97	0.96	3.97	3.97	29.884	0.000	0.046	H>M

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, lower 95%. U, upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p, statistical significance. Stage 2, partial eta squared. Source: own elaboration.

.

Statistically significant differences appear in the overall average of Block 1 of the questionnaire (S1_18), in its dimensions and in most of its items, except in P3, P7, P8, P9, P13, P16, and P17. Post hoc tests indicate that the mean of males is lower than that of females in the overall mean of the questionnaire (TOT = S1_72), as well as in all blocks (including B1), dimensions (including D1 and D2) and items, except for P18, where the mean of male participants is higher.

The results indicate that female teachers place a greater emphasis on integrating Entrepreneurial Competence into the curriculum, as evidenced by their higher scores in the questionnaire. Their stronger agreement with statements such as P1 (“It should be part of the curriculum of any educational centre”) and P10 (“It should be given more importance in educational centres”), suggests that they perceive EC as a fundamental aspect of education.

These findings align with previous research indicating that women tend to have a stronger orientation toward learning (Gorostiaga et al., 2023), which could explain their greater emphasis on EC within school curricula. In contrast, prior studies have found that men exhibit higher scores in competitive orientation (Gorostiaga et al., 2019; Lim & Envick, 2013), which may suggest a different perspective on the role of EC in education. Additionally, the absence of significant differences in some items of the questionnaire aligns with studies that report no gender differences in specific entrepreneurial dimensions such as innovation and risk-taking (Arham et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2021).

3.2. Analysis of Incidence by Age

Table 4. Number of respondents by age.

Age	N	%
J = 25 years or less	52	8.35
A = 26–35 years	176	28.25
M = 36–45 years	239	38.36
E = 46–55 years	88	14.13
R = Over 56 years	68	10.91
TOTAL	623	100

Source: own elaboration.

shows the number of respondents by age group in the sample.

As can be seen in Table 4, the distribution of the sample by age group is unequal, the percentages of the age groups, 26–35 years (28.25%), 36–45 years (38.36%), 46–55 years (14.13%), and over 56 years (10.91%) are of the same order of magnitude, while the percentages of the group of 25 years or less (8.35%) is of a lower order of magnitude.

Table 5. Age count of the participants.

Block	Dim	Item	J = 25 Years or Less					A = 26–35 Years					M = 36–45 Years					E = 46–55 Years					R = Over 56 Years
B1	D1		1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
		P1	0	0	4	22	26	0	0	7	78	91	0	0	4	128	107	0	0	0	40	48	0	0	3	27	38
		P2	0	0	3	27	22	0	0	37	77	62	0	0	36	119	84	1	0	11	39	37	0	0	12	30	26
		P3	12	14	17	6	3	35	59	13	66	3	48	87	30	70	4	12	34	12	30	0	5	30	16	8	9
		P4	0	3	18	10	21	0	1	107	27	41	0	0	139	56	44	0	0	47	15	26	0	0	21	21	26
		P5	3	18	20	8	3	10	79	17	64	6	15	93	39	75	17	2	42	14	28	2	4	26	10	16	12
		P6	1	2	8	21	20	0	6	45	85	40	2	3	57	122	55	1	0	25	41	21	0	5	25	13	25
		P7	1	1	3	26	21	5	8	4	117	42	17	11	6	150	55	0	2	2	58	26	2	0	0	39	27
		P8	0	3	2	21	26	0	2	1	72	101	0	7	1	93	138	0	1	0	38	49	0	3	0	22	43
		P9	3	11	10	22	6	1	1	38	75	61	0	5	41	109	84	0	1	29	31	27	1	1	20	26	20
		P10	0	0	8	9	35	0	1	20	72	83	0	0	36	83	120	0	0	13	34	41	0	0	7	25	36
	D2	P11	0	1	5	36	10	0	5	9	99	63	0	2	22	134	81	0	0	3	49	36	0	3	5	32	28
		P12	0	0	1	40	11	0	0	14	99	63	0	0	14	145	80	0	0	2	50	36	0	0	3	38	27
		P13	0	2	8	32	10	0	15	66	64	31	0	16	60	108	55	0	10	33	29	16	0	7	27	20	14
		P14	0	0	8	30	14	0	0	30	81	65	0	0	25	117	97	0	0	10	48	30	0	0	12	30	26
		P15	0	0	4	36	12	0	0	28	137	11	0	0	42	164	33	0	0	12	70	6	0	0	0	51	17
		P16	0	1	6	34	11	0	2	9	132	33	0	2	23	142	72	0	8	4	60	16	0	2	5	43	18
		P17	0	0	7	35	10	0	0	44	98	34	0	0	58	112	69	0	0	27	46	15	0	0	19	32	17
		P18	1	1	5	29	16	2	0	31	76	67	3	0	30	103	103	8	1	15	33	31	2	1	11	26	28

Source: own elaboration.

shows the distribution of the sample by age group: J = 25 years or less; A = 26–35 years; M = 36–45 years; E = 46–55 years; R = over 56 years. Moreover, Figure 2 illustrates the mean scores for the 18 items according to the age of the participants.

To analyse whether there were differences according to age group in the questionnaire, an ANOVA for independent samples was performed. The results are shown in

Table 6. ANOVA for independent samples by age.

Item	J = 25 Years or Less				A = 26–35 Years				M = 36–45 Years				E = 46–55 Years				R = Over 56 Years
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P1	4.42	0.64	4.25	4.60	4.48	0.58	4.39	4.56	4.43	0.53	4.36	4.50	4.55	0.50	4.44	4.65	4.51	0.59	4.37	4.66	922.134	0.000	0.006	J < M < A < R < E
P2	4.37	0.60	4.20	4.53	4.14	0.74	4.03	4.25	4.20	0.68	4.11	4.29	4.26	0.77	4.10	4.42	4.21	0.72	4.03	4.38	1164.987	0.000	0.007	A < M.R < E < J
P3	2.50	1.15	2.18	2.82	2.68	1.22	2.50	2.86	2.56	1.16	2.41	2.71	2.68	1.09	2.45	2.91	2.79	1.17	2.51	3.08	830.938	0.000	0.005	J < M < A.E < R
P4	3.94	1.00	3.66	4.22	3.61	0.85	3.49	3.74	3.60	0.78	3.50	3.70	3.76	0.88	3.57	3.95	4.07	0.83	3.87	4.28	5865.091	0.000	0.036	M < A < E < J < R
P5	2.81	0.97	2.54	3.08	2.87	1.08	2.71	3.03	2.94	1.11	2.80	3.08	2.84	0.98	2.63	3.05	3.09	1.25	2.78	3.39	772.646	0.000	0.005	J < E < A < M < R
P6	4.10	0.93	3.84	4.36	3.90	0.78	3.79	4.02	3.94	0.77	3.84	4.04	3.92	0.79	3.75	4.09	3.85	1.01	3.61	4.10	750.390	0.000	0.005	R < A < E < M < J
P7	4.25	0.81	4.02	4.48	4.04	0.84	3.92	4.16	3.90	1.04	3.77	4.03	4.23	0.60	4.10	4.35	4.31	0.76	4.13	4.49	4777.672	0.000	0.030	M < A < E < J < R
P8	4.35	0.81	4.12	4.57	4.55	0.57	4.46	4.63	4.51	0.66	4.43	4.60	4.53	0.57	4.41	4.65	4.54	0.72	4.37	4.72	1049.213	0.000	0.007	J < M < E < R.A
P9	3.33	1.12	3.02	3.64	4.10	0.79	3.98	4.22	4.14	0.77	4.04	4.24	3.95	0.83	3.78	4.13	3.93	0.89	3.71	4.14	11,122.123	0.000	0.067	J < R < E < A < M
P10	4.52	0.75	4.31	4.73	4.35	0.70	4.24	4.45	4.35	0.73	4.26	4.44	4.32	0.72	4.17	4.47	4.43	0.68	4.26	4.59	878.302	0.000	0.006	E < A.M < R < J
P11	4.06	0.61	3.89	4.23	4.25	0.68	4.15	4.35	4.23	0.64	4.15	4.31	4.38	0.55	4.26	4.49	4.25	0.78	4.06	4.44	1978.512	0.000	0.013	J < M < A.R < E
P12	4.19	0.44	4.07	4.32	4.28	0.60	4.19	4.37	4.28	0.56	4.20	4.35	4.39	0.53	4.27	4.50	4.35	0.57	4.22	4.49	1310.032	0.000	0.008	J < M.A < R < E
P13	3.96	0.71	3.76	4.16	3.63	0.87	3.50	3.76	3.85	0.85	3.74	3.95	3.58	0.92	3.38	3.77	3.60	0.93	3.38	3.83	3624.350	0.000	0.023	E < R < A < M < J
P14	4.12	0.65	3.94	4.30	4.20	0.71	4.09	4.30	4.30	0.65	4.22	4.38	4.23	0.64	4.09	4.36	4.21	0.72	4.03	4.38	1160.163	0.000	0.007	J < A.R < E < M
P15	4.15	0.54	4.00	4.30	3.90	0.46	3.83	3.97	3.96	0.56	3.89	4.03	3.93	0.45	3.84	4.03	4.25	0.44	4.14	4.36	7731.433	0.000	0.047	A < E < M < J < R
P16	4.06	0.64	3.88	4.24	4.11	0.52	4.04	4.19	4.19	0.63	4.11	4.27	3.95	0.77	3.79	4.12	4.13	0.67	3.97	4.29	2381.383	0.000	0.015	E < J < A < R < M
P17	4.06	0.57	3.90	4.22	3.94	0.67	3.84	4.04	4.05	0.73	3.95	4.14	3.86	0.68	3.72	4.01	3.97	0.73	3.79	4.15	1460.186	0.000	0.009	E < A < R < M < J
P18	4.12	0.81	3.89	4.34	4.17	0.80	4.05	4.29	4.27	0.77	4.17	4.37	3.89	1.18	3.64	4.14	4.13	0.94	3.90	4.36	3179.771	0.000	0.020	E < J < R < A < M

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, lower 95%. U, upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p, statistical significance. Stage 2, partial eta squared. Source: own elaboration.

.

As reflected in Table 6, statistically significant differences were found in the overall average of the questionnaire (TOT = S1_72), as well as in Block 1 (S1_18), Dimension 1 (D1), and Dimension 2 (D2). These differences are also present in most items from P1 to P18, except in P9. The post hoc tests show that the mean of the age group 25 and under is below the mean of the other age groups in all dimensions and blocks of the questionnaire, except in Block B1 = S1_18 = entrepreneurial spirit.

Aran (2024) highlights that educators with greater professional experience tend to place higher value on cross-disciplinary competences and their long-term impact on students. Specifically, he stresses the importance of integrating interdisciplinary skills in teacher training, enabling future educators to engage with complex, real-world challenges.

While younger teachers scored lower on most questionnaire items, they placed greater emphasis on Entrepreneurial Competence through structured school activities (P9) compared to their older peers. This suggests a preference for institutionalised initiatives within the school environment to foster entrepreneurial skills, rather than relying on external or informal learning opportunities. The increasing focus on school-based programmes and experiential learning reflects broader shifts in education that prioritise hands-on approaches to developing entrepreneurial competencies. Studies have shown that integrating experiential methods, such as business simulations and project-based learning, enhances student engagement and better prepares them for real-world challenges (Quinapallo-Quintana & Baldeon-Zambrano, 2024; Peterkova et al., 2022).

3.3. Analysis of Incidence by Position Held in the Centre

Table 7. Number of respondents by position held in the centre.

Position Held at the Centre	N	%
D = Director	18	2.89
C = Research staff	63	10.11
M = Teacher	130	20.87
O = Counsellor	9	1.44
T = Other	66	10.59
P = Secondary School Teacher	30	4.82
U = University Teacher	296	47.51
S = Secretary	11	1.77
TOTAL	623	100

Source: own elaboration.

shows the number of respondents by position held at the centre in the sample.

As indicated above, the sample is made up of professionals from various fields of education, which allows us to offer a broader and more generalised view of the perception of EC in education, without limiting the analysis to a specific level of education.

Table 8. Position held in the centre by the participants.

Block	Dim		D = Director					C = Research Staff					M = Teacher					O = Counsellor					T = Other					P = Secondary School Teacher					U = University Teacher					S = Secretary
B1	D1	Item	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
		P1	0	0	0	2	16	0	0	4	16	43	0	0	3	80	47	0	0	0	0	9	0	0	4	29	33	0	0	0	23	7	0	0	7	142	147	0	0	0	3	8
		P2	0	0	3	2	13	0	0	2	20	41	0	0	20	77	33	1	0	3	0	5	0	0	5	29	32	0	0	6	21	3	0	0	56	141	99	0	0	4	2	5
		P3	0	6	6	5	1	8	9	17	25	4	21	60	19	27	3	1	3	1	0	4	13	15	9	28	1	9	13	5	2	1	58	114	30	92	2	2	4	1	1	3
		P4	0	0	6	2	10	0	2	15	8	38	0	1	74	35	20	0	0	4	0	5	0	1	36	16	13	0	0	19	9	2	0	0	173	56	67	0	0	5	3	3
		P5	0	3	2	10	3	2	13	20	25	3	9	59	20	29	13	0	4	0	1	4	7	16	6	33	4	2	17	8	2	1	12	142	42	90	10	2	4	2	1	2
		P6	1	0	6	4	7	0	3	6	20	34	0	2	35	65	28	0	0	4	0	5	0	3	7	40	16	0	0	12	16	2	3	7	85	135	66	0	1	5	2	3
		P7	0	0	2	8	8	0	0	2	26	35	12	6	6	79	27	0	0	0	4	5	4	2	4	43	13	0	2	0	22	6	8	11	1	203	73	1	1	0	5	4
		P8	0	1	0	2	15	0	3	1	19	40	0	3	1	58	68	0	0	0	0	9	0	3	2	25	36	0	0	0	19	11	0	6	0	121	169	0	0	0	2	9
		P9	0	0	6	1	11	2	11	9	18	23	1	1	23	70	35	0	0	4	0	5	2	2	5	27	30	0	0	9	19	2	0	4	78	126	88	0	1	4	2	4
		P10	0	0	0	8	10	0	0	6	13	44	0	0	25	38	67	0	0	0	4	5	0	1	7	27	31	0	0	7	10	13	0	0	37	118	141	0	0	2	5	4
	D2	P11	0	0	0	6	12	0	2	3	30	28	0	1	14	80	35	0	0	0	4	5	0	1	3	32	30	0	0	4	23	3	0	7	19	169	101	0	0	1	6	4
		P12	0	0	0	6	12	0	0	2	32	29	0	0	8	88	34	0	0	0	4	5	0	0	3	35	28	0	0	2	25	3	0	0	18	177	101	0	0	1	5	5
		P13	0	0	11	1	6	0	3	21	24	15	0	11	28	70	21	0	0	5	0	4	0	3	15	26	22	0	3	8	17	2	0	28	102	113	53	0	2	4	2	3
		P14	0	0	3	2	13	0	0	6	26	31	0	0	15	74	41	0	0	4	0	5	0	0	5	27	34	0	0	4	24	2	0	0	45	150	101	0	0	3	3	5
		P15	0	0	3	11	4	0	0	6	45	12	0	0	15	95	20	0	0	0	4	5	0	0	21	36	9	0	0	1	28	1	0	0	39	233	24	0	0	1	6	4
		P16	0	0	0	11	7	0	1	6	43	13	0	4	13	81	32	0	0	0	5	4	0	0	2	39	25	0	1	4	23	2	0	9	21	203	63	0	0	1	6	4
		P17	0	0	9	3	6	0	0	20	31	12	0	0	27	70	33	0	0	1	4	4	0	0	12	30	24	0	0	8	20	2	0	0	76	160	60	0	0	2	5	4
		P18	0	0	7	3	8	1	1	20	22	19	4	0	9	63	54	0	0	1	4	4	0	0	9	22	35	1	0	0	16	13	9	2	46	134	105	1	0	0	3	7

Source: own elaboration.

shows the distribution of the sample by position held in the centre: D = Director; C = Research staff; M = Teacher; O = Counsellor; T = Other; P = Secondary School Teacher; U = University Teacher; S = Secretary. Moreover, Figure 3 illustrates the mean scores for the 18 items according to the position held in the centre by the participants.

To analyse whether there are differences in agreement by position in the centre in the questionnaire, an ANOVA for independent samples was performed. The results are shown in

Table 9. ANOVA for independent samples by position held in the centre.

Item	D = Director				C = Research Staff				M = Teacher				O = Counsellor
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P1	4.89	0.32	4.73	5.05	4.62	0.61	4.47	4.77	4.34	0.52	4.25	4.43	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	5.784	0.000	0.062	P.M.U < C < D.O
P2	4.56	0.78	4.17	4.95	4.62	0.55	4.48	4.76	4.10	0.63	3.99	4.21	3.89	1.45	2.77	5.01	6.685	0.000	0.071	P < M.U.T.D < C
P3	3.06	0.94	2.59	3.52	3.13	1.14	2.84	3.41	2.47	1.07	2.28	2.65	3.33	1.66	2.06	4.61	4.453	0.000	0.048	P.M.U < C
P4	4.22	0.94	3.75	4.69	4.30	0.94	4.06	4.54	3.57	0.76	3.44	3.70	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	7.385	0.000	0.078	P.M.T.U < D.C
P5	3.72	0.96	3.25	4.20	3.22	0.94	2.99	3.46	2.83	1.16	2.63	3.03	3.56	1.51	2.40	4.72	4.626	0.000	0.050	P < U.M.C < D
P6	3.89	1.13	3.33	4.45	4.35	0.85	4.14	4.56	3.92	0.74	3.79	4.04	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	3.693	0.001	0.040	P.U.M < C
P7	4.33	0.69	3.99	4.67	4.52	0.56	4.38	4.67	3.79	1.11	3.60	3.99	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	5.391	0.000	0.058	M < T.U < C
P8	4.72	0.75	4.35	5.10	4.52	0.76	4.33	4.71	4.47	0.64	4.36	4.58	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	1.885	0.070	0.021
P9	4.28	0.96	3.80	4.75	3.78	1.21	3.47	4.08	4.05	0.74	3.93	4.18	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	2.032	0.049	0.023
P10	4.56	0.51	4.30	4.81	4.60	0.66	4.44	4.77	4.32	0.78	4.19	4.46	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	1.710	0.104	0.019
P11	4.67	0.49	4.43	4.91	4.33	0.72	4.15	4.51	4.15	0.62	4.04	4.25	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	3.187	0.003	0.035	P.M < D
P12	4.67	0.49	4.43	4.91	4.43	0.56	4.29	4.57	4.20	0.53	4.11	4.29	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	3.727	0.001	0.041	P.M < C < D
P13	3.72	0.96	3.25	4.20	3.81	0.86	3.59	4.03	3.78	0.82	3.63	3.92	3.89	1.05	3.08	4.70	1.753	0.094	0.020
P14	4.56	0.78	4.17	4.95	4.40	0.66	4.23	4.56	4.20	0.63	4.09	4.31	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	3.205	0.002	0.035	P < C.T
P15	4.06	0.64	3.74	4.37	4.10	0.53	3.96	4.23	4.04	0.52	3.95	4.13	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	4.056	0.000	0.044	T.U < O
P16	4.39	0.50	4.14	4.64	4.08	0.60	3.93	4.23	4.08	0.68	3.97	4.20	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	3.145	0.003	0.035	P.U < T
P17	3.83	0.92	3.37	4.29	3.87	0.71	3.69	4.05	4.05	0.68	3.93	4.16	4.33	0.71	3.79	4.88	2.175	0.035	0.024
P18	4.06	0.94	3.59	4.52	3.90	0.91	3.68	4.13	4.25	0.84	4.11	4.40	4.33	0.71	3.79	4.88	2.256	0.028	0.025	C < T
Item	T = Other				P = Secondary School Teacher				U = University Teacher				S = Secretary
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P1	4.44	0.61	4.29	4.59	4.23	0.43	4.07	4.39	4.47	0.55	4.41	4.54	4.73	0.47	4.41	5.04	5.784	0.000	0.062	P.M.U < C < D.O
P2	4.41	0.63	4.25	4.56	3.90	0.55	3.70	4.10	4.15	0.71	4.06	4.23	4.09	0.94	3.46	4.73	6.685	0.000	0.071	P < M.U.T.D < C
P3	2.83	1.22	2.53	3.13	2.10	1.03	1.72	2.48	2.55	1.14	2.42	2.68	2.91	1.58	1.85	3.97	4.453	0.000	0.048	P.M.U < C
P4	3.62	0.82	3.42	3.82	3.43	0.63	3.20	3.67	3.64	0.83	3.55	3.74	3.82	0.87	3.23	4.41	7.385	0.000	0.078	P.M.T.U < D.C
P5	3.17	1.18	2.88	3.46	2.43	0.86	2.11	2.75	2.81	1.02	2.69	2.93	2.73	1.42	1.77	3.68	4.626	0.000	0.050	P < U.M.C < D
P6	4.05	0.73	3.87	4.23	3.67	0.61	3.44	3.89	3.86	0.82	3.76	3.95	3.64	1.03	2.95	4.33	3.693	0.001	0.040	P.U.M < C
P7	3.89	0.96	3.66	4.13	4.07	0.69	3.81	4.32	4.09	0.80	4.00	4.18	3.91	1.30	3.04	4.78	5.391	0.000	0.058	M < T.U < C
P8	4.42	0.77	4.24	4.61	4.37	0.49	4.18	4.55	4.53	0.61	4.46	4.60	4.82	0.40	4.55	5.09	1.885	0.070	0.021
P9	4.23	0.94	4.00	4.46	3.77	0.57	3.55	3.98	4.01	0.79	3.92	4.10	3.82	1.08	3.09	4.54	2.032	0.049	0.023
P10	4.33	0.73	4.15	4.51	4.20	0.81	3.90	4.50	4.35	0.69	4.27	4.43	4.18	0.75	3.68	4.69	1.710	0.104	0.019
P11	4.38	0.65	4.22	4.54	3.97	0.49	3.78	4.15	4.23	0.67	4.15	4.31	4.27	0.65	3.84	4.71	3.187	0.003	0.035	P.M < D
P12	4.38	0.58	4.24	4.52	4.03	0.41	3.88	4.19	4.28	0.57	4.22	4.35	4.36	0.67	3.91	4.82	3.727	0.001	0.041	P.M < C < D
P13	4.02	0.87	3.80	4.23	3.60	0.77	3.31	3.89	3.65	0.88	3.54	3.75	3.55	1.13	2.79	4.30	1.753	0.094	0.020
P14	4.44	0.64	4.28	4.60	3.93	0.45	3.77	4.10	4.19	0.68	4.11	4.27	4.18	0.87	3.59	4.77	3.205	0.002	0.035	P < C.T
P15	3.82	0.65	3.66	3.98	4.00	0.26	3.90	4.10	3.95	0.46	3.90	4.00	4.27	0.65	3.84	4.71	4.056	0.000	0.044	T.U < O
P16	4.35	0.54	4.22	4.48	3.87	0.57	3.65	4.08	4.08	0.63	4.01	4.15	4.27	0.65	3.84	4.71	3.145	0.003	0.035	P.U < T
P17	4.18	0.72	4.00	4.36	3.80	0.55	3.59	4.01	3.95	0.68	3.87	4.02	4.18	0.75	3.68	4.69	2.175	0.035	0.024
P18	4.39	0.72	4.22	4.57	4.33	0.80	4.03	4.63	4.09	0.90	3.99	4.20	4.36	1.21	3.55	5.17	2.256	0.028	0.025	C < T

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, lower 95%. U, upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p, statistical significance. Stage 2, partial eta squared. Source: own elaboration.

.

Statistically significant differences were found in Block 1 (S1_18), Dimension 1 (D1), Dimension 2 (D2), and in most items from P1 to P18, except for P8, P10, and P13.

The post hoc tests indicate that the mean of the research staff group is lower than that of the other groups in Block 1 (S1_18), Dimension 1 (D1), Dimension 2 (D2), and in items P9, P11, P12, P14, P15, P16, P17, and P18. Given that D1 reflects the perceived importance of entrepreneurship in education and D2 relates to its accessibility and implementation, these findings suggest that research staff may prioritise theoretical frameworks over practical applications in educational settings.

At the same time, directors demonstrated a more favourable perception of Entrepreneurial Competence compared to teachers, likely due to their involvement in institutional decision-making and innovation policies. Prior studies highlight that entrepreneurial competencies among school principals significantly influence their generative leadership and sustainable management behaviours, reinforcing the importance of entrepreneurship in educational leadership (Demirbilek & Çetin, 2022).

When analysing the perception of EC across different roles, distinct patterns emerge. Directors, secretaries, and counsellors place greater emphasis on the integration of entrepreneurship education into the curriculum, supporting the notion that it should be a fundamental component of academic training. University professors and research staff, on the other hand, stress the importance of structured entrepreneurship education, often linking its effectiveness to institutional support and specialised teaching staff.

In contrast, teachers—particularly those in secondary and higher education—acknowledge the relevance of Entrepreneurial Competence but face greater challenges in its implementation. Their concerns stem from a lack of clear definitions and objectives, insufficient curriculum alignment, and limited resources and institutional support, highlighting the need for targeted training programmes and improved resource allocation to bridge the gap between policy and classroom practice (Balasi et al., 2023).

3.4. Analysis of Incidence by Entrepreneurial Competence Training

Table 10. Number of respondents by Entrepreneurial Competence Training.

Entrepreneurial Competence Training	N	%
L = During my work experience	384	61.64
U = During my university studies	96	15.41
N = Never	129	20.71
O = Other	14	2.25
TOTAL	623	100

Source: own elaboration.

shows the number of respondents by Entrepreneurial Competence Training.

As can be seen in Table 10, the distribution of the sample by training in Entrepreneurial Competence is unequal, the percentages of the groups “during my work experience” (61.64%), “during my university studies” (15.41%), and “never” (20.71%) are of the same order of magnitude and one order of magnitude higher than the “other” group (2.25%).

Table 11. Count by Entrepreneurial Competence Training of the participating sample.

Block	Dim	Item	L = Work Experience					U = University Studies					N = Never					O = Other
B1	D1		1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5	1	2	3	4	5
		P1	0	0	9	175	200	0	0	3	48	45	0	0	6	60	63	0	0	0	12	2
		P2	0	0	65	166	153	0	0	10	51	35	1	0	24	63	41	0	0	0	12	2
		P3	64	123	64	121	12	15	42	10	25	4	31	50	11	34	3	2	9	3	0	0
		P4	0	1	210	78	95	0	1	37	29	29	0	2	75	20	32	0	0	10	2	2
		P5	24	150	62	131	17	5	31	11	29	20	5	66	25	30	3	0	11	2	1	0
		P6	2	10	108	176	88	1	3	14	34	44	1	3	37	62	26	0	0	1	10	3
		P7	6	18	3	240	117	16	3	5	48	24	3	1	7	91	27	0	0	0	11	3
		P8	0	9	1	142	232	0	6	1	29	60	0	0	2	65	62	0	1	0	10	3
		P9	2	5	86	163	128	1	7	11	37	40	2	6	40	51	30	0	1	1	12	0
		P10	0	0	68	151	165	0	0	5	26	65	0	1	9	45	74	0	0	2	1	11
	D2	P11	0	7	36	188	153	0	2	3	58	33	0	2	4	93	30	0	0	1	11	2
		P12	0	0	26	207	151	0	0	4	59	33	0	0	4	94	31	0	0	0	12	2
		P13	0	41	121	133	89	0	4	21	52	19	0	4	52	56	17	0	1	0	12	1
		P14	0	0	48	189	147	0	0	9	38	49	0	0	28	66	35	0	0	0	13	1
		P15	0	0	65	286	33	0	0	7	57	32	0	0	14	102	13	0	0	0	13	1
		P16	0	13	38	238	95	0	0	2	59	35	0	1	6	103	19	0	1	1	11	1
		P17	0	0	110	182	92	0	0	15	45	36	0	0	29	84	16	0	0	1	12	1
		P18	14	2	58	137	173	0	0	12	48	36	1	1	22	71	34	1	0	0	11	2

Source: own elaboration.

shows the distribution of the sample according to training in Entrepreneurial Competence: L = During my work experience; U = During my university studies; N = Never; O = Other. Moreover, Figure 4 illustrates the mean scores for the 18 items according to the Entrepreneurial Competence Training of the participants.

To analyse whether there are differences according to the Entrepreneurial Competence Training in the questionnaire, an ANOVA for independent samples was performed. The results are shown in

Table 12. ANOVA for independent samples by Entrepreneurial Competence Training.

Item	L = Work Experience				U = University Studies				N = Never				O = Other
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p	Stage 2	Direction
P1	4.50	0.55	4.44	4.55	4.44	0.56	4.32	4.55	4.44	0.59	4.34	4.54	4.14	0.36	3.93	4.35	2185.887	0.000	0.010	O < U.N < L
P2	4.23	0.72	4.16	4.30	4.26	0.64	4.13	4.39	4.11	0.75	3.98	4.24	4.14	0.36	3.93	4.35	1185.646	0.000	0.006	N < O < L < U
P3	2.72	1.16	2.61	2.84	2.59	1.16	2.36	2.83	2.44	1.19	2.24	2.65	2.07	0.62	1.72	2.43	3115.680	0.000	0.015	O < N < U < L
P4	3.70	0.84	3.61	3.78	3.90	0.85	3.72	4.07	3.64	0.87	3.48	3.79	3.43	0.76	2.99	3.87	2422.796	0.000	0.012	O < N < L < U
P5	2.91	1.07	2.81	3.02	3.29	1.26	3.04	3.55	2.69	0.95	2.52	2.86	2.29	0.61	1.93	2.64	7475.506	0.000	0.035	O < N < L < U
P6	3.88	0.81	3.80	3.96	4.22	0.88	4.04	4.40	3.84	0.80	3.71	3.98	4.14	0.53	3.83	4.45	5367.723	0.000	0.025	N < L < O < U
P7	4.16	0.79	4.08	4.24	3.64	1.35	3.36	3.91	4.07	0.71	3.95	4.19	4.21	0.43	3.97	4.46	9269.940	0.000	0.043	U < N < L < O
P8	4.55	0.63	4.49	4.62	4.49	0.81	4.33	4.65	4.47	0.53	4.37	4.56	4.07	0.73	3.65	4.49	3040.470	0.000	0.014	O < N < U < L
P9	4.07	0.81	3.99	4.15	4.13	0.95	3.93	4.32	3.78	0.91	3.62	3.94	3.79	0.58	3.45	4.12	4604.697	0.000	0.022	N.O < L < U
P10	4.25	0.74	4.18	4.33	4.63	0.58	4.51	4.74	4.49	0.66	4.37	4.60	4.64	0.74	4.21	5.07	9819.138	0.000	0.045	L < N < U < O
P11	4.27	0.70	4.20	4.34	4.27	0.62	4.14	4.40	4.17	0.55	4.08	4.27	4.07	0.47	3.80	4.35	1093.782	0.000	0.005	O < N < L.U
P12	4.33	0.60	4.27	4.39	4.30	0.55	4.19	4.41	4.21	0.48	4.13	4.29	4.14	0.36	3.93	4.35	1735.334	0.000	0.008	O < N < U < L
P13	3.70	0.94	3.61	3.80	3.90	0.76	3.74	4.05	3.67	0.74	3.54	3.80	3.93	0.62	3.57	4.28	1760.638	0.000	0.008	N < L < U < O
P14	4.26	0.67	4.19	4.32	4.42	0.66	4.28	4.55	4.05	0.70	3.93	4.18	4.07	0.27	3.92	4.23	6028.002	0.000	0.028	N < O < L < U
P15	3.92	0.50	3.87	3.97	4.26	0.58	4.14	4.38	3.99	0.46	3.91	4.07	4.07	0.27	3.92	4.23	12,249.467	0.000	0.056	L < N < O < U
P16	4.08	0.69	4.01	4.15	4.34	0.52	4.24	4.45	4.09	0.47	4.00	4.17	3.86	0.66	3.47	4.24	5598.971	0.000	0.026	O < L.N < U
P17	3.95	0.72	3.88	4.03	4.22	0.70	4.08	4.36	3.90	0.58	3.80	4.00	4.00	0.39	3.77	4.23	4669.263	0.000	0.022	N < L < O < U
P18	4.18	0.96	4.08	4.28	4.25	0.66	4.12	4.38	4.05	0.73	3.93	4.18	3.93	0.92	3.40	4.46	1366.866	0.000	0.007	O < N < L < U

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, lower 95%. U, upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p, statistical significance. Stage 2, partial eta squared. Source: own elaboration.

.

As shown in Table 12, statistically significant differences were found in the overall average of the questionnaire (TOT = S1_72), as well as in Block 1 (S1_18), Dimension 1 (D1), Dimension 2 (D2), and in most items from P1 to P18.

Post hoc tests indicate that the means of the “never” and “other” groups are lower than those of the other groups in the overall average of the questionnaire (TOT = S1_72), in Block 1 (S1_18), Dimension 1 (D1), Dimension 2 (D2), and in most of the items from P1 to P18, except in P7, P10, and P15.

These findings suggest that formal exposure to entrepreneurship education positively influences educators’ perceptions of its relevance and implementation in educational centres. Ruskovaara and Pihkala (2014) found that teachers with prior entrepreneurship training were more likely to integrate it effectively into their teaching practices, reinforcing the value of structured training programmes in this field.

However, exceptions were observed in P7 (“Entrepreneurial Competence should be acquired mainly within educational institutions”) and P10 (“It should be given more importance in educational centres”), where participants without training scored similarly or even higher than those with formal training. This may indicate that, regardless of their training in entrepreneurship education, untrained educators still recognise the critical role of educational centres in fostering entrepreneurial skills.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The findings of this study highlight the high value that teachers place on Entrepreneurial Competence (EC) in education. However, major obstacles persist, particularly the lack of teacher training in entrepreneurship and the shortage of adequate resources, which hinder the effective promotion of EC in educational institutions.

In the field of education, the promotion of Entrepreneurial Competence has acquired a fundamental role, as it is recognised as a key skill for the development of autonomous, creative, and innovative-minded individuals (Batista et al., 2017; Pedraza & Velasquez, 2019). In this article, we have analysed the results obtained after applying the questionnaire designed to assess teachers’ perception of the importance and development of this skill in educational centres, considering the variables gender, age, position held at a centre, and training in Entrepreneurial Competence.

Regarding gender, both men and women recognise the importance of promoting Entrepreneurial Competence inside and outside the classroom, recognising its role in enhancing students’ creativity, adaptability, and problem-solving skills (Briasco, 2016). Despite this, the results show that women score slightly higher on all items related to valuing and fostering this competence. In relation to age, the results reveal that, regardless of this variable, teachers assign very high scores to the item covering the importance of including the Entrepreneurial Competence within the curriculum of any educational centre. Furthermore, when analysing the highest average scores given by each age group, all the participants agree that educational materials (digital and printed) are the most accessible resources for supporting Entrepreneurial Competence in educational centres (Ruesta & Gejaño, 2022).

The analysis of institutional roles shows that school leaders have a more favourable perception of Entrepreneurial Competence compared to teachers. This difference may be related to their greater proximity to institutional innovation policies. On the other hand, teachers and professors identify greater barriers in the implementation of the competence, suggesting the need to improve entrepreneurship training and available resources. Regarding training in Entrepreneurial Competence, the results show that those education professionals who have received specific training in this area, either in their university studies or in other contexts, show a more positive attitude towards its teaching and application in the classroom. In contrast, those who have not received training show a more critical perception and greater difficulties in integrating this competence into their teaching practice.

Based on these results, it can be concluded that the effective development of Entrepreneurial Competence in the classroom requires more structured and accessible strategies for teachers. The implementation of active and collaborative methodologies, reinforced by entrepreneurship training for educators and the exchange of teaching experiences, are key aspects for consolidation EC in the education system (De la Torre et al., 2016; Lopez et al., 2019; Nuñez & Nuñez, 2018). To ensure its effective incorporation into the education system, several key actions should be prioritised. Entrepreneurship education must be systematically integrated into school curricula, making it a core component of learning rather than an elective or extracurricular subject. Additionally, teacher training programmes should emphasise the application of active methodologies, such as project-based learning, design thinking, and real-world business challenges, allowing students to apply their knowledge in practical settings (Nuñez-Canal et al., 2023; Oksanen et al., 2022).

Moreover, education policies should ensure the allocation of sufficient resources to support EC, providing educational centres with updated digital and printed materials, entrepreneurship labs, and collaborative learning spaces that facilitate experiential learning. Finally, stronger collaboration between educational institutions and the business sector is essential. Schools and universities should establish partnerships with businesses, startups, and entrepreneurial organisations to develop mentoring programmes, internships, and entrepreneurship centres, ensuring that students gain hands-on experience in entrepreneurship (Ghina et al., 2015; Sirelkhatim & Gangi, 2015).

The integration of Entrepreneurial Competence in education is essential to prepare students to face the educational, economic, and social challenges of the future (Mahmudin, 2023). However, its successful implementation depends on improved curricula, well-structured teacher training programmes, adequate resource allocation, and stronger partnerships between the education sector and the business world.

While this study provides valuable insights into teachers’ perceptions of Entrepreneurial Competence, some limitations should be considered. The cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point in time, making it impossible to assess how these views evolve over time. Additionally, this study focuses on specific variables (gender, age, position held in the centre, and teacher training in EC), which, while relevant, cannot fully capture all factors influencing teachers’ perceptions. Other important aspects, such as institutional policies, socio-economic contexts, and access to professional development programmes in entrepreneurship, could also significantly shape how EC is valued and implemented in educational centres.

As lines of future research, it would be advisable to explore the influence of factors, such as teacher training in active methodologies, professional background, and the impact of the socio-economic context on teachers’ perception of Entrepreneurial Competence. Likewise, longitudinal studies would make it possible to evaluate the evolution of this perception over time and to determine which strategies are most effective for integrating and consolidating Entrepreneurship Education in the educational curriculum, given that “entrepreneurial education is an appropriate pedagogical response to these new economic, social and political challenges driven by digital globalisation” (Nuñez & Nuñez, 2018, p. 10).

Additionally, although this study analyses participants’ professional roles, it does not specifically differentiate between educational stages (primary, secondary, and university), as some roles (such as directors, counsellors, or researchers) may operate across different educational levels. However, it is likely that educational stage influences how EC is approached and implemented in practice. For this reason, future research should examine these differences more systematically, through stratified sampling or subgroup analyses, to better understand how EC is perceived and enacted depending on the educational level.