Opinions of Public Education Trainees on Entrepreneurship


Abstract views: 48 / PDF downloads: 22

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10642718

Keywords:

Entrepreneurship, trainee, public education, innovation, opportunity, risk

Abstract

This research aims to reveal the opinions of trainees in Public Education Centers regarding their entrepreneurial characteristics. The study was conducted by interview method. In 2023, data were collected by interviewing 40 people who were trainees in Çal, Tavas, Merkezefendi and Pamukkale Public Education Centers in Denizli province. The content analysis method was used to analyze the data. The opinions of the research trainees regarding the potential of following the developments closely and reflecting them on their entrepreneurial behavior are largely positive. It has been observed that the trainees try to evaluate the opportunities, follow the developments, and try to realize the opportunities that can be implemented. Most of the Public Education Center trainees see their potential to realize entrepreneurial opportunities at a good level. However, they stated that although they saw the opportunities, they did not have the courage, they did not have the means, they did research and made efforts. Regarding the potential for collaboration and finding partners regarding entrepreneurship; While some of the trainees consider themselves to be good or very good, some consider themselves more cautious and selective. Trainees, regarding their potential to collaborate and find partners; stated that their expectations as a result of the benefit/cost evaluation resulting from the trust, past experiences, cooperation and partnership were effective. Most of the trainees see their potential in following sectoral support and projects related to entrepreneurship at a good level. It has been observed that they have different perspectives on the solutions to problems related to entrepreneurship, they ask someone who knows, and they are at a good level in this field. It has been determined that the trainees' planning and implementation potential regarding entrepreneurship is largely good, they make detailed planning and put it into practice, and they are planned and organized. Trainees view their potential to participate in the place, process and work related to entrepreneurship largely positively. It has been observed that Public Education Center trainees are generally able to take initiative and risks regarding entrepreneurship. However, a significant portion of them stated that they could not take initiative and risks and that they experienced fear. It has been observed that the trainees' views on creating and evaluating opportunities related to entrepreneurship are largely positive, and they try to create and benefit from opportunities in this regard. It has been determined that the trainees are distant from the issue of acting outside the rules in order to create entrepreneurship-related innovation and innovation, and that they do not have a tendency to break the rules. Nearly half of the trainees stated that they were cautious about taking risks and dealing with risky projects related to entrepreneurship and that they were not interested in these businesses.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bayraktar, S. (2011). Avrupa Birliği Mesleki Eğitim Programlarında Girişimcilik Eğitimlerinin Ekonomik Kalkınmadaki Önemi. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi,12(1), 245-264.

Bozkurt, Ö. ve Alparslan, A. (2013). Girişimcilerde Bulunması Gereken Özellikler ile Girişimcilik Eğitimi: Girişimci ve Öğrenci Görüşleri. Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi, 8 (1), 7-28.

Ekici, E. ve Turan, M. (2017). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Eğilimi: Planlanmış Davranışlar Teorisi Ve Girişimcilik Eğitiminin Rolü. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 26(1), 201-215.

Eroğlu, N. ve Dündar, Ş. (2018). Ortaöğretim Girişimcilik Ders Kitabı. MEB: Devlet Kitapları.

Ertekin, AB. (2020). Spor Eğitimi Alanında Öğrenim Gören Öğrencilerin Girişimcilik Düzeyleri ile Kariyer Farkındalıkları Arasındaki İlişki. İnönü Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilimleri Dergisi, 7 (3), 14-27.

Güven, B. ve Kaygın, E. (2018). Girişimcilik: Temel Kavramlar, Girişimcilik Türleri, Girişimcilikte Güncel Konular. İstanbul: Siyah İnci Akademi, s.35-47 ve 87-191.

Hansen, B. (2019). The digital revolution–digital entrepreneurship and transformation in Beijing. Small Enterprise Research 26 (1), 36-54.

Hisrich, R. ve Peters, M. (1998). Entrepreneurship 4th Edition. Boston: Mcgraw Hill. Hofstede, G. (1983). National Cultures İn Four Dimensions: A Research-Based Theory Of Cultural Differences Among Nations. International Studies Of Management & Organization, s.46-74.

Işık N., Göktaş, D., Kılınç, E. C. (2011). İktisadi Büyümede Girişimciliğin Rolü Girişimcilik ve Kalkınma Dergisi 6 (1), 148-178

İlhan, S. (2004). Girişimcilik ve Sosyo-Ekonomik Süreçteki Rolü. Doğu Anadolu Bölgesi Araştırmaları, 70-75.

Murathan, G., İnan, H. ve Karakaplan Özer, E. (2020). Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Yüksekokulu Öğrencilerinin Girişimcilik Özelliklerinin Farklı Değişkenler Açısından İncelenmesi. Tarih Okulu Dergisi, 47, 2807-2822.

Uygun, M., Güner, E. ve Mete, S. (2018). Girişimcilik Eğitiminin Gençlerin Girişimcilik Motivasyonlarının Gelişimindeki Rolü. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 25 (3), s.879-894.

Yaghoubi, N. M., Salehi, M., Eftekharian, A. ve Samipourgiri, E. (2012). Identification of the effective structural factors on creating and developing digital entrepreneurship in the agricultural sector. African Journal of Agricultural Research 7 (6), 1047-1053.

Yelkikalan, N., Akatay, A., Yıldırım, H.M. Karadeniz, Y., Köse, C., Koncagül, Ö., Özer, E. (2010). Dünya ve Türkiye Üniversitelerinde Girişimcilik Eğitimi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Analiz. KMÜ Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi,12(19), 51-59.

Published

2024-01-31

How to Cite

Denizli, M. (2024). Opinions of Public Education Trainees on Entrepreneurship. Premium E-Journal of Social Science (PEJOSS), 8(38), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10642718