In a nutshell
Making entrepreneurship education compulsory doesn’t guarantee it will stick. Too early, and students tune out. Too late, and they’ve moved on. Taught poorly, and it’s wasted. The key isn’t whether we teach it — it’s when and how.
Let’s be honest, if making something compulsory guaranteed success, we’d all be fluent in a second language from school. But just like language learning, entrepreneurship education doesn’t magically work just because students are required to take a course. For years, researchers and educators have debated whether compulsory entrepreneurship education is effective. Some argue that it sparks innovation, builds critical skills, and encourages students to explore entrepreneurship; others claim that forcing students to learn something they’re not interested in — or ready for — results in disengagement and limited long-term impact. This study, instead of asking whether or not entrepreneurship education works, shifts the conversation and asks the more nuanced question: when does it actually make an impact? The answer, it turns out, depends on three key factors: timing, pedagogy, and personal relevance.
One of the most crucial elements is when students encounter entrepreneurship in their academic journey. If introduced too early, students may not yet see its relevance or lack the experience to fully engage. If introduced too late, they may have already set career plans that don’t include entrepreneurship, making learning it feel like an unnecessary add-on. The study suggests that entrepreneurship education should align with students’ personal and professional development stages to maximise its impact, rather than being treated as a generic requirement.
But timing alone isn’t enough — how entrepreneurship is taught is just as important. Simply mandating a course doesn’t mean students will engage with it. The study highlights that courses relying solely on lectures or passive learning often fail to leave a lasting impression. Instead, entrepreneurship education is most effective when it is hands-on, experience-driven, and interactive. When students learn by doing — through real-world projects, challenges, and entrepreneurial experiences — they absorb and retain the lessons in ways that traditional classroom methods simply cannot replicate.
Publication Date: 4 February 2025
Authors: Victor Udeozor, Mathew (Mat) Hughes, Oyedele Martins Ogundana, and Ugbede Umoru
Institutions: Nottingham Business School, Nottingham Trent University, UK; School of Business, University of Leicester, UK
Study Type: Empirical Study
Sample Size: 361 students
Research Focus: Examining how experiential pedagogy — such as out-of-class experiences and engaging faculty — affects students’ entrepreneurial intent and intention to innovate within compulsory entrepreneurship education.
Research Methodology: A pretest-posttest quantitative study using structural equation modelling to assess changes in entrepreneurial intention and innovation intention across public and private universities in Nigeria.
Main Findings: Simply making entrepreneurship education mandatory has limited impact on entrepreneurial intent. However, experiential learning methods, particularly out-of-class activities and engaged faculty, significantly boost students’ attitudes and behaviour toward entrepreneurship.
Citation: Udeozor, V., Hughes, M. (Mat), Ogundana, O. M., & Umoru, U. (2025). Putting pedagogy back in: Moving from “whether” to “when” compulsory entrepreneurship education “works.” Journal of Small Business Management, 1–38. Link
Beyond timing and teaching methods, the study also hits on the importance of personal relevance. Different students have different career aspirations, and their engagement with entrepreneurship depends on whether they see value in it. A finance student might benefit from entrepreneurial thinking but have no interest in launching a startup, while an aspiring founder might crave more venture-focused content. Basically, entrepreneurship education should not be treated as a one-size-fits-all course, but rather as a flexible learning experience that can be tailored to different student needs.
For educators, this means thinking carefully about when students are introduced to entrepreneurship, using experiential learning approaches that move beyond theory, and ensuring that courses connect with students’ real-world aspirations. For universities and policymakers, the key takeaway is that simply increasing the number of entrepreneurship courses is not the solution. Instead, efforts should focus on designing curricula that offer meaningful, well-timed, and engaging learning experiences. Training educators in active teaching methods and allowing flexibility in entrepreneurship programme structures will be far more effective than treating it as a box to tick in the curriculum.
So, the message here is that entrepreneurship education isn’t about forcing students to learn — it’s about sparking something real in them. Instead of debating whether compulsory entrepreneurship education works, we should be asking how to make it work better. If we focus less on making entrepreneurship education mandatory and more on making it meaningful, we might finally get the results we’re looking for.
