The Impact of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on Social Learning

towards Students’ Entrepreneurial Attitude and Behavior

Dadang Sundawa

, Neiny Ratmaningsih

and Diana Noor Anggraini

Department of Social Studies, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Setiabudhi 229, Bandung, Indonesia

Keywords:

Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0, Social Learning, Students, Attitude and Behaviour

Abstract:

This research aims to describe the impact of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on Social Learning towards

students‘ entrepreneurship attitude and behaviour in higher education. This study uses a quantitative approach

with a survey method on 245 students of the Faculty of Social Sciences Education, Indonesian University

of Education having an entrepreneur background. Data collection method used Likert scale questionnaire

and attitude scale in which the alternative answers positive values 5 to 1. The scattered questionnaire was

tested by the instrument twice to produce validity and good reliability. Then it is processed and analyzed

using Structural Equation Model (SEM) analysis. The results of this study indicate that: 1) Entrepreneurship

Sustainability 4.0 Model on social learning includes structured curriculum, methods, media, material, sources

and evaluations designed to contain the value of entrepreneurship in a sustainable manner in the digital age; 2)

campus environment is an independent variable that inﬂuences student entrepreneurial attitudes and behavior

both macro and micro; 3) the model of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on social learning has a positive

effect on entrepreneurial attitudes of 18.2% and entrepreneurial behavior of 19%.

1 INTRODUCTION

In the end of the 21st century, higher education meets

a difﬁcult and critical period because it is necessary

to include education for sustainability (EfS) in all ed-

ucational programs. Despite the success in incorpo-

rating the digital innovation in campus programs, it

is indicated that higher education is improving sus-

tainability slowly. Education is required to promote

behavior change and to provide main competencies

for all citizens in order to achieve sustainable devel-

opment. Success in reversing unsustainable trends

will largely depend on quality education for sustain-

able development at all levels of education, such as

the use of energy and sustainable transportation sys-

tems, consumption habit and sustainable production,

health, media competence and responsibilities global

citizenship.

The aspects of sustainability on the economic side

are sensitivity to the limitations, potential of eco-

nomic growth, and its impact on society and the envi-

ronment. It is associated with commitments to eval-

uate the level of individual consumption and commu-

nities as a concern for the environment and social jus-

tice. In other words, sustainable development needed

now is economic development satisfying the needs

of the current generation without reducing the abil-

ity of future generations to accommodate their needs

(Pezzey, 1992). There are two things that implic-

itly concern: First, the importance of paying atten-

tion to natural resource and environmental constraints

on consumption patterns; Second, attention to the

wellbeing of future generations. The assumption of

sustainability lies at least in three basic axioms; (1)

present and future treatments giving a positive value

in the long run; (2) realizing that environmental assets

contribute to economic wellbeing; (3) knowing the

constraints because implications arising on environ-

mental assets (Heal, 1998). Thus, the three principles

emphasize individual policy in changing a paradigm

of life that life is a cycle that will synergistic ally in-

terrelate and provide praxis in real life.

The industrial revolution created a person’s work-

ing conditions, economic living conditions, and eco-

nomic status. This revolution brought changes in con-

sumer behavior through mass production and com-

patibility distribution. In line with the development,

manual production is now undergoing changes in nan-

otechnology for mass production, automation, and

factory worker replacement. Some fresh graduates are

interested in building business networks and jobs that

lead to ICT skills. In accordance with the demands

136

Sundawa, D., Ratmaningsih, N. and Anggraini, D.

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on Social Learning towards Students‘ Entrepreneurial Attitude and Behavior.

DOI: 10.5220/0009906901360142

In Proceedings of the International Conferences on Information System and Technology (CONRIST 2019), pages 136-142

ISBN: 978-989-758-453-4

of future jobs at the level of digital technology, com-

puting, automation, and digital humans. Thus, educa-

tion responds challenges by learning about trends and

changes. It gives new views about future economic

opportunities (Moberg, 2014).

The higher education curriculum adjusts the in-

ﬂuence of socio-economic and techno-economic de-

velopments for future employment needs (Tejedor,

Segal

as and Rosas-Casals, 2018). One of them is

entrepreneurship education based on fourlevel struc-

tures. At the ﬁrst level, a student is involved with in-

formation (supply). At the second level, there are in-

volvement and questions (demand). At the third level,

there is supply and demand (competence). At the last

level, teaching is designed to be a hybrid model com-

bining all levels of entrepreneurial teaching (Ismail,

Sawang and Zolin, 2018). Entrepreneurial teaching

and learning are very important to understand eco-

nomic opportunities and to ﬁnd the best ways to ex-

plore them (Jensen, 2014).

The conceptual framework of this study is an-

chored in the interrelationship between elements of

entrepreneurship education and the continuing indus-

trial revolution. Sustainable entrepreneurship educa-

tion is related to some themes such as ICT infras-

tructure, policy and regulatory governance, human re-

source development, and innovation-based economy.

This is the complexity of the digital knowledge econ-

omy. The sustainability paradigm should then reﬂect

the interactions of various systems which are com-

plex, dynamic, non-linear, and self-regulating (Fun-

towicz et al., 1999). We also remind that a sustain-

able knowledge society is not a society ﬁlled with a

myriad of digital technologies but that is collectively

infrastructure, applications and literacy (Sharma &

Mokhtar, 2006). Some research questions focused on

this study, including: (1) How can the best implemen-

tation of sustainable entrepreneurship 4.0 model be

implemented in social learning? (2) What are the stu-

dents’ perceptions toward the implementation of dig-

ital enterpreneurship? (3) How can social learning

through the sustainable entrepreneurship model 4.0

effectively inﬂuence entrepreneurial attitudes and be-

havior?

2 METHOD

The research used a quantitative approach with a sur-

vey method explaining causal relationships between

variables along with testing hypotheses, such that rel-

ative events, distribution, and relationships between

Obtained sociological and physicological variables

(Singarimbun and Effendi, 1995). There are three

characteristics of the survey method. The ﬁrst one

is the objectives can be descriptive as well as veriﬁca-

tion, explanatory or conﬁrmatory. The second one is

collected data from predetermined samples. The last

one is the captured research variable data (Kerlinger,

1990)(Gall et al., 2003) (McMillan and Schumacher,

2001).

Participants in this study were students of the Fac-

ulty of Social Sciences Education, Indonesian Educa-

tion University consisting of the Department of Cit-

izenship Education, Department of History, Depart-

ment of Geography, Department of Social Sciences

Education, Department of Sociology Education, De-

partment of Tourism Marketing Management, Depart-

ment of Catering Industry Management, Department

of Resort and Leisure Management, Department of

Communication Studies, Department of Islamic Reli-

gious Education, and Department of Mapping Survey

and Geographic Information. A total of 12 study pro-

grams / departments have a number of students rang-

ing from 3393 people. Thus, the sample used was

based on a sample distribution of students having an

entrepreneur background (245 people).

The data collection technique used in this study

was giving a questionnaire to the students. Data col-

lection is done by submitting a list of questions to a

number of individuals and they were asked to write

the answers. This study uses a closed questionnaire,

because the questions in the questionnaire have pro-

vided alternative answers. The data processing tech-

nique of the questionnaire results uses a Likert scale

where alternative answers to positive values are 5 to

1. The scoring is done based on the respondents’ an-

swers and then scored using the Likert scale and at-

titude scale. The questionnaire processing using Mi-

crosoft Excel for coding data. The data obtained is

then processed through the process of editing, scor-

ing, data entry, and data analysis. For the analy-

sis of respondent data and respondent categories, we

used a LISREL software tool. Hypothesis testing

in this study uses a structural equation modeling or

commonly called (Structural Equation Model / SEM).

SEM statistical techniques are used to test a series of

relationships between several variables (Hair et al.,

1998).

The stages of SEM process according to (Cooper

and Pamela, ) are written as follows: (1) model speci-

ﬁcations, (2) estimation, (3) compatibility test, (4) re-

speciﬁcation, (5) interpretation and communication.

Structural Equation Model (SEM) starts with specify-

ing the research model to be estimated. The speciﬁ-

cation of the research model, reprisenting the problem

of the study is important in SEM. The model speciﬁ-

cation is carried out on the measurement model and

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on Social Learning towards Students‘ Entrepreneurial Attitude and Behavior

137

structural model which will eventually be described

in the path diagram, represented a combination of the

measurement model and structural model.

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Results

3.1.1 Entrepreneurship Sustainable 4.0 Model

on Social Learning

This paper provides insights on the implementation

of social learning in collaboration with the Industrial

Revolution 4.0 on Continuing Entrepreneurship edu-

cation. Entrepreneurship is one element of economic

development and improvement of life in the future

(Kirby, 2004). The subjects in social learning refer

to the Higher Education curriculum adapted to the so-

cial, economic, and industrial revolution 4.0 themes

which can be seen as follows.

Figure 1: Topic on Social Learning with entrepreneurship,

sustainable and industry 4.0.

Some of the topics above become a reference for

lecturers in providing understanding related to en-

trepreneurship, sustainable development, and the in-

dustrial revolution 4.0. The application that must be

considered in

• The curriculum design of teaching and social

learning must be designed to deliver students

about complex socio-technological transforma-

tion problems.

• Students need to learn carefully about

technological-economic opportunities to be

able to develop competitive business ideas.

• Students are invited to develop digital-based

learning models and artiﬁcial intelligence.

• Entrepreneurship education must offer the recip-

ients the skills to develop business ideas or solu-

tions.

• Entrepreneurship Learning brings an entrepreneur

into a guest lecturer in class

• The practice of sustainability needed for social,

environmental and economically sustainable so-

lutions are an important consideration for Indus-

try 4.0 and the need for entrepreneurship to instill

sustainability.

The 4th industrial revolution content in social

learning is also called Industry 4.0 (Morrar et al.,

2017). It is based on technological economical, so-

cietal transformation, rapid change, sustainability and

application of data and artiﬁcial intelligence (Bauer

et al., 2015). The increased attention for entrepreneur-

ship as a subject in institutions of higher learning fol-

lowed rapid industrial revolutions and the need to un-

derstand the people behind opportunity identiﬁcation

(

O Grada, 2016).

3.2 Student Perceptions of Integration

Entrepreneurship, Sustainable and

Industry 4.0 in Campus

Environment

The campus environment is an independent vari-

able inﬂuencing student entrepreneurial attitudes and

behaviour. The measurement of campus environ-

ment variables measures the perception of millennial

students towards the implementation of digital en-

trepreneurship leading to sustainable development by

using attitude scale measurement. The campus envi-

ronment variable consists of two indicators, namely

the macro environment and the macro environment.

Macro environment indicators show how coaching is

carried out by the campus or campus activity unit con-

cerned in the process of forming entrepreneurial atti-

tudes and behaviours. Whereas the microenvironment

shows how digital entrepreneurship learning is con-

tinuously carried out by lecturers in classroom learn-

ing.

Following are the results of the percentage of

macro environment from some respondents.

Figure 2: Student Perceptions of Macro Environmental In-

dicators.

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

138

Based on Figure 2, it can be seen that the de-

scription of the indicators rated the highest by respon-

dents in measuring the dimensions of the macro en-

vironment is the policy support on entrepreneurship

programs on campus with the highest average score

of 51.02%, while the lowest rated is campus support

in providing facilities for entrepreneurship including

business preparation, capital support and business as-

sistance. Rating of these indicators is 10.34%.

While the results of the percentage of micro envi-

ronment from some respondents can be seen as fol-

lows.

Figure 3: Student Perceptions of Micro Environmental In-

dicators.

The Figure 3 above shows that the description of

respondents’ assessment of the dimensions of the mi-

croenvironment. The highest rated indicators of en-

trepreneurship learning carried out to pay attention

toward the current and future material needs with

the highest average score of 77.02%, while the in-

dicators assessed the lowest by respondents are en-

trepreneurial learning carried out creating Business

Plans, mentoring, and monitoring evaluation with an

average score of 62.46%.

Figure 4: Campus Environment Variable Category.

Based on the Figure 4 above, it is worrying that

judging from each forming the campus environment

variable, the dimensions of the micro environment

(69.31%) are considered higher than the macro en-

vironment (30.69%). A description of the overall

campus environment variable can be seen in the over-

all continuum review of the respondents’ assessment

through the calculation process by ﬁnding the ideal

score where the highest score multiplied by the num-

ber of items multiplied by the number of respondents.

Obtaining a score based on the results of data process-

ing on the campus environment variable is 16,677 or

70.59% of the ideal score, the score can be described

continuously as follows:

Figure 5: Ideal score.

Based on the Figure 5 of the continuum value of

campus environment variables that the total score for

the variable is 16,677 is in the continuum line with a

very high category.

3.2.1 The Impact of Sustainable

Entrepreneurship 4.0 is a Model towards

Entrepreneurial Attitude and Behavior

Based on the structural model testing results, it can be

stated the results of hypothesis testing.

“ There is a signiﬁcant inﬂuence of sustain-

able entrepreneurship 4.0 model on student en-

trepreneurial attitudes and behavior”

In testing the hypothesis used a signiﬁcance level

of 0.05, it is used because the value of C.R. ≥ 1.96.

The estimation parameter between the construct of

sustainable entrepreneurship 4.0 models towards en-

trepreneurial attitudes shows positive signiﬁcant re-

sults with C.R. = 2.443 (≥1.96), while the p value

of 0.015 (≤0.05). Thus it can be concluded that hy-

pothesis 1 stating that sustainable entrepreneurship

4.0 models have a signiﬁcant effect on entrepreneurial

behavior can be accepted. Overall a summary of the

results of hypothesis testing is presented in the fol-

lowing table:

Figure 6: Research Hypothesis Testing Results.

Referring to the results of data analysis and

hypothesis testing shows that the sustainable en-

trepreneurship 4.0 model has a positive effect on stu-

dent entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour. The

magnitude of the inﬂuence of campus environment

variables on entrepreneurial attitudes 18.2% and the

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on Social Learning towards Students‘ Entrepreneurial Attitude and Behavior

139

inﬂuence of campus environment variables on en-

trepreneurial behaviour by 19%. Thus it was con-

cluded that besides the campus environmental factors

there were other variables inﬂuenced entrepreneurial

attitudes and behavior. Sustainable entrepreneurship

4.0 model implemented in the campus environment is

a determining factor for the development of the per-

sonality of students can continue to higher education

or work (Hurlock et al., 1990).

4 DISCUSSIONS

The role of higher education for the formation of stu-

dent entrepreneurial character can be applied through

two strategies namely macro and micro strategies

(Lupiyoadi, 2018). Based on the data of students’

perceptions about the campus environment they feel

in the form of support for entrepreneurship show-

ing that the dimensions of the micro environment

(69.31%) are rated higher than the macro environment

(30.69%).

Micro strategy is at the level of learning in the

classroom, especially learning entrepreneurship. En-

trepreneurship learning is 1) learning shaping people

holistically; 2) learning awakening the ﬁve senses of

students; 3) experiential learning; 4) reallife learning;

5) life skill based learning shapes entrepreneur’s char-

acter; and 6) Learning entrepreneurship does not only

focus on Business Plan (Siswoyo, 2009).

Macro strategy is at the level of tertiary policy

which is the duty and responsibility to foster the spirit

and character of entrepreneurship through real pro-

grams so that students are expected to become job

creators. Higher education policy includes integrating

learning entrepreneurship into the college curriculum;

developing entrepreneurship centers in tertiary insti-

tutions; and creating a national cultural movement

and entrepreneurship training for students.

The micro environment on campus is the small-

est unit of environment so that the entrepreneurship

habits of the students and lecturers are more involved,

including interactions in learning and other academic

cultures in the classroom. Whereas the macro envi-

ronment of the wider environment unit so that en-

trepreneurial habituation is carried out not only by

students and lecturers but also by the organization

and role of universities involved in the interaction

process. Educational institutions themselves are a

form of small society and are seen as a system of so-

cial organization because it includes goals and val-

ues, structural subsystems, and cultural sub-systems

(Alma, 2009). Therefore, a healthy campus environ-

ment will be able to build a high entrepreneurial cul-

ture. These people have an important role in inﬂuenc-

ing and shaping the character of entrepreneurship and

independence of a student.

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia has contributed

in the process of civilizing entrepreneurship for stu-

dents in tertiary institutions. One of the mainstay pro-

grams is the Entrepreneurial Student Program (PMW)

in the form of supporting programs organized by the

Directorate General of Higher Education. The pur-

pose of this program is to improve the skills and

the skills of students especially the sense of busi-

ness so that potential young entrepreneurs will be

reached, grow new entrepreneurs highly educated,

create IPTEKS-based business units, and build busi-

ness networks between business people, especially

new entrepreneurs with established entrepreneurs.

While the beneﬁts expected to be felt by students

are providing opportunities to improve students’ soft

skills by directly being involved in the conditions of

the world of work, providing direct opportunities to

engage in SMEs and honing entrepreneurial spirit, as

well as growing business spirit so that they have the

courage to start a business supported by capital given

and accompanied in an integrated manner.

Based on the results of several studies revealed

that entrepreneurship education has an impact on

attitudes, intentions, and entrepreneurial behavior.

The effects of entrepreneurship education are ob-

tained from learning innovation programs as a form

of involvement in entrepreneurial activities. Sup-

port from the campus in organizing entrepreneur-

ship education is necessary to encourage business

start-up and encourage employability. This sustain-

able entrepreneurship 4.0 model describes an edu-

cational project resulting in a reduction in student

consumption and an increase in their productivity to

promote sustainable lifestyles (Fretschner and Weber,

2013) (Escobar-Tello and Bhamra, 2013) (Jones et al.,

2017).

In line with Littunen’s research, H (2015) re-

garding ”entrepreneurship and characteristics of the

entrepreneurial personality” or interpreted as en-

trepreneurial personality characteristics and their im-

pact on changes in entrepreneurial personality rela-

tionships. According to empirical ﬁndings, being an

entrepreneur and acting as a good entrepreneur is seen

from the aspect of the entrepreneurial learning pro-

cess, which in turn has an effect on the personality

characteristics of the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurship

pushes to solve problems and control by the strength

of others which has declined since the initial phase.

Changes in entrepreneurial relationships with others

were also observed to have an effect on the person-

ality characteristics of entrepreneurs. Other empir-

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

140

ical ﬁndings also show that some of the number of

partners in cooperation has decreased, control by the

power of others has also decreased, and that, since

the initial phase, entrepreneurs whose personal rela-

tionships have increased also showed a clear increase

in terms of mastery.

Thought theory (McClelland et al., 1961) pro-

posed the concept of Need for Achievement (N-Ach)

interpreted as a personality virus causing a person to

want to do good and move forward, always think to

do better, and have realistic goals by taking the right

risk actions completely calculated. As for the char-

acteristics of those who have high N-Ach are as fol-

lows: (1) Work with realistic risks, (2) Work harder

in tasks that require mental abilities, (3) Not work

more actively due to ﬁnancial rewards , (4) Want to

work in situations where personal achievement can

be obtained (Personal Achievement), (5) Show better

performance in conditions that provide clear positive

feedback, (6) Tend to think into the future and have

long-term thinking.

This entrepreneurial personality is very necessary

for a student to support his career in the future. Stu-

dents instilled in an entrepreneurial spirit demonstrate

the existence of a successful person as well as con-

tributing to economic development for the nation and

state. If there are many unemployed people, then the

nation feels a setback to advance the country’s econ-

omy. The importance of the world of entrepreneur-

ship is now a big concern for every level of society.

Development will be more successful if it is supported

by entrepreneurs who can open up opportunities and

employment amid limited government capacity.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The contribution of tertiary institutions to shape stu-

dent entrepreneurial attitudes and behaviour can be

implemented through two strategies namely macro

and micro strategies. The micro environment on cam-

pus is the smallest unit of environment so that the en-

trepreneurship habits of the students and lecturers are

more involved, including interactions in learning and

other academic cultures in the classroom. Whereas

the macro environment of the wider environment unit

so that entrepreneurial habituation is carried out not

only by students and lecturers but also by the organi-

zation and role of universities involved in the interac-

tion process. Based on the data of students’ percep-

tions of the campus environment that they feel in the

form of support for entrepreneurship showing that the

dimensions of the micro environment are rated higher

than the macro environment. This sustainable en-

trepreneurship 4.0 model is a micro strategy describ-

ing an educational project resulting in a reduction in

student consumption and an increase in their produc-

tivity to promote sustainable lifestyles. The model of

entrepreneurship sustainability 4.0 on social learning

has a positive effect on entrepreneurial attitudes of

18.2% and entrepreneurial behavior of 19%. There-

fore, this model is feasible to be implemented in fac-

ing future needs. Thus, the model of entrepreneur-

ship sustainability 4.0 responds challenges by nov-

elty learning about trends and changes. It gives new

views about future economic opportunities and future

works.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research is a grant from Universitas Pendidikan

Indonesia and Department of Social Studies, Faculty

of Social Sciences Education through the scheme of

innovation and teaching of Indonesia research. The

author would like to express sincere appreciation for

all support provided.

REFERENCES

Alma, B. (2009). Kewirausahaan. bandung: Alfabeta.

Muhammadiyah 3 Yogyakarta.

Bauer, W., H

ammerle, M., Schlund, S., and Vocke, C.

(2015). Transforming to a hyper-connected society

and economy–towards an “industry 4.0”. Procedia

Manufacturing, 3:417–424.

Cooper, D. R. and Pamela, S. Schindler.(2006). Business

research methods, 5.

Escobar-Tello, M. C. and Bhamra, T. (2013). Happiness

as a harmonising path for bringing higher education

towards sustainability. Environment, development and

sustainability, 15(1):177–197.

Fretschner, M. and Weber, S. (2013). Measuring and un-

derstanding the effects of entrepreneurial awareness

education. Journal of small business management,

51(3):410–428.

Funtowicz, S., O’Connor, M., Ravetz, J., et al. (1999).

Scientiﬁc communication, international cooperation

and capacity building for sustainable development.

International Journal of Sustainable Development,

2(3):363–367.

Gall, M., Gall, J., and Borg, W. (2003). Education research:

An introduction, 7th eddition.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E.,

Tatham, R. L., et al. (1998). Multivariate data analy-

sis, volume 5. Prentice hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Heal, G. M. (1998). Valuing the future: economic theory

and sustainability. Columbia University Press.

The Impact of Entrepreneurship Sustainability 4.0 on Social Learning towards Students‘ Entrepreneurial Attitude and Behavior

141

Hurlock, E. B., Istiwidayanti, Sijabat, R. M., and Soedjarwo

(1990). Psikologi perkembangan: Suatu pendekatan

sepanjang rentang kehidupan. Erlangga, Jakarta.

Jones, P., Pickernell, D., Fisher, R., and Netana, C. (2017).

A tale of two universities: graduates perceived value

of entrepreneurship education. Education+ Training.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1990). Asas-asas penelitian behavioral,

penerjemah landung r.

Kirby, D. A. (2004). Entrepreneurship education: can busi-

ness schools meet the challenge? Education+ train-

ing.

Lupiyoadi, R. (2018). Manajemen pemasaran jasa: Berba-

sis kompetensi; edisi 3.

McClelland, D. C. et al. (1961). Achieving society. Num-

ber 15. Simon and Schuster.

McMillan, J. and Schumacher, S. (2001). Research in edu-

cation. new york: Addison welsey longman.

Morrar, R., Arman, H., and Mousa, S. (2017). The fourth

industrial revolution (industry 4.0): A social innova-

tion perspective. Technology Innovation Management

Review, 7(11):12–20.

O Grada, C. (2016). Did science cause the industrial revolu-

tion? Journal of Economic Literature, 54(1):224–39.

Pezzey, J. (1992). Sustainable development concept: An

economic analysis. The World Bank.

Singarimbun, M. and Effendi, S. (1995). Metode penelitian

survai edisi revisi. Jakarta: Lp3ES.

CONRIST 2019 - International Conferences on Information System and Technology

142