Leadership and Entrepreneurship in Education and Their Impact on the Management of Sustainable Educational Environments

Abstract

The role of leadership and entrepreneurship in teaching is key to the management of sustainable educational environments, promoting inclusive and innovative teaching. This quantitative, cross-sectional study seeks to explore education professionals’ perceptions of their leadership, entrepreneurship, and empowerment capacities in education based on a validated questionnaire applied to 623 education professionals. The results reveal that women, teachers in management positions, and those who are older and more and experienced perceive their skills in these areas to be better than those of men, classroom teachers, and those with less professional experience. However, gaps in teacher training in leadership and entrepreneurship have been identified, which hinders the implementation of effective strategies for educational transformation. In conclusion, there is a need to strengthen teacher training in entrepreneurship, leadership, and empowerment and establish educational policies that favor innovation, collaborative work, and the consolidation of inclusive and sustainable pedagogical practices.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurship, leadership, and teacher empowerment are fundamental pillars in enhancing the education system, directly impacting teaching and contributing to the consolidation of sustainable and inclusive educational practices. In this sense, education professionals have evolved beyond being simple transmitters of knowledge and become agents of transformation, guiding teaching–learning processes and generating innovative educational environments [1,2,3].

For example, in Spain and Portugal, teacher training programs focused on educational innovation have emphasized teacher leadership and pedagogical entrepreneurship, promoting active methodologies such as Project-Based Learning (PBL). In Spain, the Fundacion Princesa de Girona (FPdGi) has implemented the “Generacion Docentes” program, which offers innovative training in key skills such as leadership and entrepreneurial initiative. Additionally, the FPdGi has launched training programs such as “How to Educate Entrepreneurial Talent”, aimed at Andalusian teachers, focusing on fostering entrepreneurial competence in the classroom through active methodologies like PBL [4,5].

Similar to Spain, Portugal has undertaken significant educational reforms aimed at strengthening school autonomy and fostering pedagogical innovation. Since the late 20th century, the country has progressively granted greater decision-making power to schools, allowing them to adapt curricula to local needs while promoting entrepreneurial education [6].

The European Commission’s EntreComp Framework provides a structured framework for developing entrepreneurial competencies in education and beyond. This framework highlights the importance of equipping teachers with entrepreneurial skills to allow them to integrate entrepreneurial learning into their pedagogical approaches, fostering a culture of innovation and continuous improvement in educational institutions [7,8]. These national efforts align with broader European frameworks that promote entrepreneurial education across the continent.

Europe has actively promoted entrepreneurial education through initiatives such as the YOUCOOPE project, emphasizing the integration of cooperative entrepreneurship in education. YOUCOOPE, a European initiative supported by multiple institutions, including the Santander International Entrepreneurship Center (CISE), equips educators with methodologies and tools to integrate cooperative entrepreneurship into their teaching practices. Through training programs, open-access resources, and real-world case studies, this project helps schools and universities across Europe develop interdisciplinary approaches that combine entrepreneurship with social responsibility, fostering collaboration, ethical business practices, and sustainable economic models [9].

Beyond Europe, Turkey and Chile have also launched initiatives to strengthen teacher leadership, entrepreneurship, and innovation in education, recognizing the essential role of educators in driving institutional change. In Turkey, the Leadership, Entrepreneurship, and Teaching Seminars Project, implemented by TÜBITAK TÜSSIDE, has provided intensive training to over 13,875 educators in technical and vocational education since 2013, equipping them with leadership and entrepreneurial skills to foster innovative teaching practices [10]. Additionally, the Digital Skills for Teachers Initiative, supported by UNICEF and the European Union, aims to enhance the technological competencies of 200,000 educators, modernizing teaching methods and improving digital literacy in classrooms nationwide [11,12].

Similarly, Chile has prioritized teacher leadership and professional development through various initiatives aimed at fostering collaborative leadership and driving school improvement. One key initiative is + Comunidad: Center for Educational Leadership, which supports educators in regions such as Atacama, Biobío, and Los Ríos by promoting networked improvement strategies and capacity-building programs for school leaders [13,14].

Consequently, teacher leadership arises from the integration of didactic–formative practices and a teacher’s creativity, aligning with the institutional vision and the demands of the educational environment. Beyond its individual dimension, it becomes a determining factor for professional development, allowing teachers to influence their contexts, manage change, and promote strategies that strengthen the development of key competences among students [1,2,3].

From this perspective, leadership and teacher empowerment are closely related concepts. While leadership refers to the ability to influence and transform the educational environment, teacher empowerment is understood as the process through which teachers acquire autonomy, confidence, and skills for decision-making and change management [15,16]. Both elements contribute to the training of teachers capable of acting with initiative and creativity, fostering the development of key competences among students and responding to the challenges of the 21st century [17]. At the same time, educational entrepreneurship strengthens leadership and teacher empowerment by fostering initiative, creativity, and the search for innovative solutions to improve teaching and respond to the challenges of a constantly evolving education system.

The evolution of the concept of leadership throughout history has allowed its transition from hierarchical and authoritarian models to more participatory and transformational approaches, in which educators assume an active role in the construction of knowledge [18]. In line with this evolution, teacher empowerment is a key tool for strengthening the teaching profession, giving educators the ability to lead their own practices and promote more dynamic teaching adapted to the needs of students [19]. However, despite its importance, research has pointed to shortcomings in teacher training in entrepreneurship, leadership, and empowerment [20,21]. These shortcomings limit the ability of education professionals to generate structural changes in teaching and, consequently, affect their impact on improving educational processes.

In this context, it is crucial to promote education policies and training programs that foster entrepreneurship, leadership, and teacher empowerment. Training in these areas strengthens teachers’ professional development and contributes to improving the quality of education and building more inclusive and democratic educational institutions. For these improvements to be effective, teachers need to be able to manage diversity in the classroom, implement active methodologies, and generate collaborative learning dynamics that stimulate critical thinking and student autonomy [22,23].

A collaborative and creative form of teaching leadership enables the design of learning environments that address students’ diverse needs, promoting active methodologies and differentiated teaching strategies. Moreover, fostering teacher leadership and entrepreneurship not only enhances teachers’ autonomy and capacity for innovation but also plays a crucial role in the consolidation of inclusive educational practices. This process drives the development of innovative solutions that ensure equity and access to knowledge for all students. In this sense, Entrepreneurial and leadership-oriented teachers play a dual role: they drive inclusive education by fostering innovation and equity in classrooms while also advancing their own professional growth [24,25,26,27].

On the other hand, inclusive educational practices also reinforce teacher leadership and entrepreneurship by encouraging a culture of collaboration, flexibility, and problem-solving. By managing diverse classrooms, teachers develop essential leadership skills such as decision-making, adaptability, and conflict resolution while also fostering an entrepreneurial mindset through the search for creative solutions to pedagogical challenges. Strategies such as Project-Based Learning, Cooperative Learning, and Universal Design for Learning not only enhance inclusion but also empower teachers as leaders within their educational communities. Ultimately, the interaction between teacher leadership, entrepreneurship, and inclusive education fosters a sustainable cycle of equity, innovation, and transformative learning environments. Understanding these aspects is crucial for designing training programs and institutional policies that effectively support educators in fostering inclusive and sustainable learning environments [28,29].

In this context, the present study aims to assess teachers’ capacity as leaders and entrepreneurs and their empowerment in the context of inclusive educational practices. Specifically, it examines how teachers perceive and develop these competencies as well as the factors influencing their ability to apply them in diverse educational settings. Understanding these aspects is crucial for designing training programs and institutional policies that effectively support educators in fostering inclusive and sustainable learning environments.

To achieve this objective, this study poses the following research question: how do teachers develop and apply leadership, entrepreneurial skills, and empowerment to foster inclusive educational environments? By exploring these dimensions, this research contributes to the broader discussion on teacher professional development and the role of entrepreneurship and leadership in creating innovative, equitable, and student-centered education systems.

2. Materials and Methods

This study is a form of observational research, with a cross-sectional design and a quantitative approach. Data collection was carried out at a single point in time, without direct intervention or manipulation of variables, focusing on the description of the characteristics of teachers in terms of leadership, entrepreneurship, and empowerment in education.

The study sample consisted of 623 education professionals, including teachers from different educational levels, as well as individuals with managerial roles, counsellors, and researchers. Of the participants, 2.89% held the position of director, while 10.11% were involved in research and 20.87% worked as primary school teachers. A total of 1.44% served guidance functions, and 10.59% fell under the category of “other”. In addition, 4.82% worked as secondary school teachers, 47.51% worked as university teachers, and 1.77% worked as secretaries.

Participants were chosen using a non-probabilistic convenience-sampling method, considering their accessibility and willingness to participate. No random selection criteria were applied, nor was their decision to take part influenced in any way [30]. Their participation remained entirely voluntary and anonymous, allowing them to respond freely without any external constraints.

The participants came from various countries, including Spain, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Chile. These countries were selected based on existing academic collaborations and accessibility through professional networks, ensuring a diverse representation of different educational contexts.

Instrument, Variables, and Procedure

For the collection of information, a questionnaire structured as three blocks was designed, consisting of 72 items distributed across 14 dimensions evaluated using a five-point Likert scale. Participants rated each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), generating a total of seventy-one ordinal variables. Item 51 was excluded from any dimension as it had a distinct purpose: to allow participants to prioritize the eight key competencies that make up Entrepreneurial Competence (EC) based on their perceived level of development.

Specifically, the questionnaire was divided into 3 blocks. The first block, B1 = entrepreneurial spirit, included two dimensions: D1 = EC assessment, consisting of 10 items, and D2 = EC promotion, which comprised 8 items. The second block, B2 = entrepreneurial skills, encompassed 8 dimensions, namely, D3 = organization, D4 = leadership, D5 = effective communication, D6 = evaluation, D7 = team coordination, D8 = initiative, D9 = independence and innovation, and D10 = motivation, with most dimensions containing 4 items, except for D8 = initiative, which included 3. Finally, the third block, B3 = leadership, entrepreneurship, and teachers’ empowerment, comprised four dimensions: D11 = leadership, made up of 6 items; D12 = entrepreneurship, covering 7 items; D13 = empowerment, composed of 4 items; and D14 = inclusive education, which featured 4 items.

To facilitate statistical analysis, dependent variables were constructed by aggregating and averaging the responses within specific sections of the questionnaire. The overall dependent variable, S1_72, was calculated as the average of all items in the questionnaire. Additionally, other dependent variables were created to analyze specific sections and dimensions of the questionnaire. For instance, S1_18, S19_50, and S52_72 represent the main blocks of the questionnaire, while S1_10, S11_18, S19_23, S24_27, S28_31, S32_35, S36_39, S40_42, S43_46, S47_50, S52_57, S58_64, S65_68, and S69_72 correspond to dimensions within the instrument. Each of these dependent variables was obtained by summing the ordinal responses of participants within the corresponding set of items and dividing the result by the number of items in that section.

The questionnaire underwent a rigorous validation process conducted by 16 educational experts with extensive experience in this field of study. This expert panel included 2 Full Professors, 2 Associate Professors, 5 Permanent Lecturers, 3 Assistant Professors, 3 Part-Time Lecturers, and 1 Researcher. Their diverse academic backgrounds and professional expertise ensured there was a comprehensive evaluation of the instrument, contributing to its validity and reliability.

In addition to the evaluation conducted by the experts, statistical validation techniques were applied to further confirm the robustness of the instrument. Lawshe’s Content Validity Index was applied, verifying the high quality of the instrument. No item scored below 0.88, and 72.22% reached the maximum value [31]. In addition, an exploratory factor analysis was carried out with tests such as the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin index and Bartlett’s test of sphericity, whose values confirmed the adequacy of the instrument.

In terms of reliability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α) was used, yielding an overall value of 0.846, indicating high internal consistency [32]. For data analysis, dependent variables were established to reflect the degree of overall agreement with the questionnaire, calculated as the mean of the items in each section.

Independent variables such as sex (H = men and M = women), age (J = 25 years old or less, A = 26–35 years old, M = 36–45 years old, E = 46–55 years old, and R = over 56 years old), teaching experience (p = 0–5 years, S = 6–15 years, T = 16–25 years, and C = over 25 years), and position held at the center (D = director, S = secretary, O = counsellor, M = primary-school teacher, p = secondary-school teacher, U = university teacher, I = research staff, and T = other) were also considered.

The questionnaire was administered through Google Forms, ensuring response confidentiality. It was distributed between 2022 and 2023 through institutional channels, academic mailing lists, and professional networks to reach a diverse group of education professionals. Participants could complete it without time restrictions, with anonymity and data privacy strictly maintained.

Given that the data did not have a normal distribution, non-parametric statistical methods were applied, such as Monte Carlo simulation and the bootstrap procedure, to identify significant differences between the groups analyzed [33]. In addition, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) of independent samples was used to evaluate the existence of variations according to the variables studied, calculating values such as the F statistic and the significance level (p). Post hoc tests were performed, considering unequal variances and using tests such as Tamhane’s T2, Dunnett’s T3, the Games–Howell test, and Dunnett’s C, which made it possible to identify the magnitudes and impacts of the differences found in this study.

3. Results

The results are presented according to the specific objective of the third section of this study, corresponding to Block 3 of the questionnaire, for which the goal was to analyze teachers’ capacities in terms of leadership, entrepreneurship, and empowerment within the framework of inclusive educational practices. Specifically, Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics associated with the four dimensions assessed in this third block.

Table 1 presents the mean scores obtained in the different dimensions assessed within Block 3 of the questionnaire. In dimension D11, the mean was 4.613 (SD = 0.539), while in dimension D12, it reached a value of 4.542 (SD = 0.496). Dimension D13 had a mean of 4.614 (SD = 0.466), and dimension D14 had a mean score of 4.570 (SD = 0.649). Finally, the overall mean for B3 was 4.581 (SD = 0.494).

3.1. Results According to the Sex of the Participants

The sample of participants shows a balanced distribution between both sexes, with 50.08% of the participants being men and 49.92% being women, reflecting almost identical proportions.

To assess possible variations in the results according to sex, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for independent samples was applied. The findings obtained from this analysis are detailed in Table 2.

Statistically significant differences in the overall score for Block 3 of the questionnaire (S52_72) were identified for most items, except for P54, P55, P56, P61, P62, P64, P65, P66, P67, P68, P70, and P72. Likewise, for the dimensions of B3, no significant differences were found in the dimension D13 = S65_68. Post hoc tests revealed that, in general, men scored lower than women on the mean of Block 3 of the questionnaire as well as on most of its dimensions and items. However, for item P60, relating to the promotion of ethical learning that favors the understanding of diverse perspectives, and for item P63, which refers to the development of a constructivist approach where students play a central role in their learning, males scored higher than females, showing an opposite trend in these specific cases.

3.2. Results According to Ages of Participants

The distribution of the sample according to age groups is divided into five categories, with the following proportions of participants: 8.35% were 25 years old or younger, 28.25% were between 26 and 35 years old, 38.36% belonged to the 36-to-45 age range, 14.13% were in the 46-to-55 age bracket, and 10.91% were over 56 years old.

To determine whether there were significant differences in the results of the questionnaire according to age, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out for independent samples. The data obtained from this analysis are shown in Table 3.

Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in the overall score of Block 3 of the questionnaire (S52_72) across all dimensions and items. Post hoc tests indicated that the group of participants aged 25 or younger scored lower than the other age groups in all dimensions of the third block of the questionnaire. This suggests that the younger respondents had a different perception in relation to the skills assessed in this block (entrepreneurship, leadership, and teacher empowerment in inclusive educational practices) compared to the older participants.

3.3. Results According to the Position Held at the Center

The sample analyzed is made up of professionals from different educational fields. Of the participants, 2.89% held the position of director, while 10.11% were involved in research and 20.87% worked as teachers. In total, 1.44% served guidance roles, and 10.59% were in the category of “other”. In addition, 4.82% worked as secondary school teachers, 47.51% worked as university teachers, and 1.77% were secretaries.

To determine whether the positions the participants held at their respective centers influenced the results of the questionnaire, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for independent samples was carried out. The findings obtained in this analysis are presented in Table 4.

The statistical analysis revealed significant differences for most of the items in Block 3 of the questionnaire (S52_72), except for items P54, P56, P61, P65, P66, P68, P70, and P72. Likewise, within the dimensions of this block, no significant differences were found in D11 = S52_57, D12 = S58_64, and D13 = S65_68.

The post hoc tests showed that the group of participants with the role of research staff had lower scores compared to the rest of the groups in the overall average of Block 3 as well as all its dimensions and items. This suggests that their perceptions of their entrepreneurial, leadership, and teacher empowerment skills in inclusive educational practices differ from those of the other education professionals.

3.4. Results According to Teaching Experience of Participants

The sample is distributed according to teaching experience in four categories: 18.94% of the respondents had between 0 and 5 years of teaching experience, while 39% belong to the 6 to 15 years group. On the other hand, 30.5% had between 16 and 25 years of teaching experience, and 11.56% had been teaching for more than 26 years.

To analyze possible variations in the results of the questionnaire according to professional experience, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for independent samples was applied. The findings obtained from this analysis are detailed in Table 5.

The statistical analysis showed significant differences in most of the items in Block 3 of the questionnaire (S52_72), except for P53, P55, P58, P59, P71, and P72. Likewise, within the dimensions of this block, no significant differences were found in D14 = S69_72.

The post hoc tests revealed that the group with less teaching experience (0–5 years) scored lower compared to the rest of the participants in the overall Block 3 score, except for items P53, related to creativity and innovation in academia, and P59, related to valuing success in terms of its social impact. This difference was also reflected in dimensions D11 = S52_57, D12 = S58_64, and D13 = S65_68, suggesting that teachers with less professional experience perceive their competences in entrepreneurship, leadership, and teacher empowerment differently compared to education professionals with more professional experience.

4. Discussion of Results and Conclusions

In a context wherein sustainability and educational inclusion are fundamental pillars of development [34], leadership, entrepreneurship, and teacher empowerment have an impact on the quality of teaching and contribute to the development of citizens with an innovative and critical mindset, committed to solving social, economic, and environmental challenges [35,36]. Entrepreneurial education and sustainable leadership play an essential role in this process, as they not only train teachers to manage change within their institutions, promoting their stability and sustainability [37,38], but also contribute to the training of professionals with a profile based on creativity, planning, management, innovation, and the ability to take risks [39].

Strong leadership, together with an entrepreneurial mindset, enables teachers to drive structural changes within their institutions, promoting teaching models that balance educational innovation with social and environmental commitment [40,41]. In this sense, the development of teacher entrepreneurship and leadership influences the improvement of teaching quality and, at the same time, contributes to the formation of more open, persevering and resilient education professionals, with the ability to adapt to global challenges and promote sustainable learning environments. Integrating leadership and entrepreneurship strategies into teacher education is key to transforming learning environments and ensuring that education plays an active role in building a more inclusive and sustainable future [42,43]. However, this study has shown that the development of these competencies among education professionals can vary depending on factors such as gender, age, the position held at a center, and teaching experience.

In terms of sex, women showed higher self-perceptions of their skills in leadership, entrepreneurship, and teacher empowerment. However, men scored higher on specific aspects such as promoting ethical learning that fosters understanding of different perspectives and adopting a constructivist approach where students are the protagonists of their learning. These differences suggest that, although both groups perceive themselves as skilled in these competences, they approach them differently.

Previous studies support the idea that women typically adopt cooperative and collaborative leadership approaches, while men are often associated with high levels of control and analytical problem-solving [44,45]. In this study, the female participants demonstrated a stronger self-perception of leadership, entrepreneurship, and empowerment skills, reinforcing the idea that women frequently engage in transformational leadership styles that emphasize inclusivity, mentorship, and relationship-building. In contrast, the male participants scored higher in fostering ethical learning and promoting constructivist methodologies, a result that aligns with previous studies suggesting that men are more inclined toward strategic and directive leadership approaches [45,46]. These differences could be attributed to societal expectations and institutional cultures that shape self-perceptions of leadership and professional roles in education. However, gender should not represent a limitation for the development of leadership skills among either teachers or students [47].

Age was also found to be a determining factor for perceptions of leadership, empowerment, and entrepreneurship in teaching. Younger participants (25 years of age or less) had lower scores compared to those in older age groups. This result can be explained by the social-structural perspective of teacher empowerment, which argues that institutional culture and organizational structures influence the development of these competences [48]. Through this lens, empowerment is seen as the responsibility of those in hierarchical positions who are responsible for creating favorable conditions for participation and leadership. However, this conception may underestimate the capacity of teachers to develop their own initiatives autonomously [49]. In this sense, younger teachers, being in the early stages of their careers and lacking access to these leadership spaces, may develop less consolidated perceptions of their own skills in these areas.

Moreover, these findings align with various studies highlighting that structured mentoring and leadership development programs can help early-career teachers bridge these gaps. Additionally, younger teachers, while less experienced in institutional leadership, often bring innovative perspectives and are more inclined to engage in risk-taking and digital entrepreneurship in education. Recognizing these strengths and providing targeted training opportunities could help harness their potential as future leaders in inclusive and sustainable education [50,51].

Similarly, the position held at a center also influences self-perceptions of these competences. Research staff had the lowest scores, suggesting that their work, which is largely focused on academic production, may limit their development in the areas of leadership, entrepreneurship, and teacher empowerment. In contrast, education professionals in managerial or coordinating roles showed greater confidence in these skills, which reinforces the idea that the exercise of leadership roles within an educational institution facilitates the strengthening of these competences.

Professionals primarily engaged in research often encounter a different distribution of power within institutions, which can shape their perceptions of leadership and entrepreneurship. In institutions that prioritize research, the emphasis is typically placed on scholarly output rather than leadership development, which influences how research staff participate in decision-making and organizational leadership [52,53].

Teaching experience also played a key role in the success of inclusive educational practices and in the consolidation of teacher leadership, empowerment, and entrepreneurship. Education professionals with less than five years of professional experience had lower scores compared to those with more experience, suggesting that practice and exposure to different educational contexts contribute to the strengthening of these competences. However, there were exceptions for some specific items: teachers with less experience obtained similar or even higher scores on aspects such as academic creativity and innovation and valuing success in terms of its social impact. In other words, although teaching experience favors the development of leadership and empowerment skills, new generations can bring innovative approaches that should be harnessed and enhanced within education [54]. Previous studies reinforce this idea, suggesting that while experienced teachers develop stronger leadership and organizational skills, newer educators are often more inclined to experiment with innovative pedagogical strategies and technology-enhanced learning [55,56,57]. This highlights the potential for cross-generational collaboration within educational institutions, where experienced teachers provide guidance in leadership, while younger educators introduce novel approaches to teaching and learning.

These results are in line with current trends in research on sustainability and educational leadership, highlighting the need to strengthen teacher training in these areas. The integration of sustainability principles in education requires teachers with leadership, empowerment, and entrepreneurial skills, capable of generating innovative and inclusive learning environments. In this sense, it is essential to develop strategies to consolidate a culture of sustainability within educational institutions, promoting active methodologies that favor student autonomy and encourage critical thinking [58,59]. Furthermore, digitalization and the use of new technologies can play key roles in this process, facilitating the implementation of teaching practices aligned with the principles of the circular economy and sustainable management [60,61].

Autonomy and critical thinking are fundamental in transforming the teacher’s role from a mere knowledge transmitter to a facilitator of meaningful learning experiences. These competencies foster innovation and responsibility in both students and teachers. Teacher empowerment and student autonomy are interrelated: empowered teachers are better equipped to promote autonomy and critical thinking in their classrooms, while practicing these strategies enhances their own professional growth [22,62,63].

Teacher education programs should emphasize active methodologies, which foster student engagement and critical thinking. These approaches encourage teachers to rethink classroom dynamics and critically reflect on their own beliefs and assumptions. Incorporating sustainability and social responsibility into teacher education curricula prepares educators to face global challenges while fostering empowered, innovative teachers and critical learners [64,65,66].

5. Limitations and Future Lines

While this study provides valuable insights into teacher leadership, entrepreneurship, and empowerment in educational settings, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, we employed a non-probabilistic convenience sampling method, which, although effective for reaching a diverse group of educational professionals, limits the generalizability of the findings to broader populations. Future research should consider probabilistic sampling techniques to enhance representativeness.

Second, this study’s cross-sectional design captures only a single point in time, restricting the ability to analyze how leadership, entrepreneurship, and empowerment skills evolve throughout teachers’ careers. Longitudinal studies would offer a more comprehensive understanding of these dynamics by tracking changes over time.

Third, the treatment of Likert-scale responses as interval data may have led to limitations in accurately representing the nature of the responses. Since Likert scales are ordinal by nature, using means and standard deviations may not fully capture the distribution of responses. Alternative measures, such as the median and interquartile range, could provide a more precise representation of central tendency and variability.

Building on the findings of this study, future research could explore how leadership, empowerment, and sustainable entrepreneurship training impact teaching practices as well as examine the role of school organizational culture in shaping the development of these skills. Additionally, investigating strategies for enhancing entrepreneurship and pedagogical leadership in inclusive and sustainable educational contexts would be valuable.

Moreover, research could focus on developing effective strategies for enhancing entrepreneurial and pedagogical leadership in inclusive and sustainable educational contexts. Identifying best practices for integrating entrepreneurship education into teacher training programs would provide valuable contributions to this field.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Methodology, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Software, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Validation, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Formal analysis, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Investigation, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Resources, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Data curation, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Writing—original draft, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Writing—review & editing, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Visualization, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Supervision, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Project administration, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R.; Funding acquisition, A.G.-Z., E.G.-T., R.G.-P. and A.P.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Although approval from a formal Ethics Committee was not obtained, in this study, we strictly adhered to fundamental ethical principles, prioritizing voluntary participation and participant anonymity. Clear and informed consent was obtained, ensuring that all the individuals involved were fully aware of the study’s objectives, procedures, anticipated benefits, and any potential risks or inconveniences. This approach demonstrates a strong commitment to ethical best practices, guaranteeing that the participants made their decisions freely and with complete information.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Due to the anonymity and confidentiality of the data obtained, the authors have not reported any of the data obtained, the purpose of which is exclusively the development of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Footnotes

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Tables

Table 1

Descriptive statistics of the dimensions related to B3 after the application of the questionnaire.

Dimensions	Items	Mean	Lower 95%	Upper 95%	Standard Deviation	Lower 95%	Upper 95%
D11 = Leadership	S52_57	4.613	4.570	4.656	0.539	0.496	0.583
D12 = Entrepreneurship	S58_64	4.542	4.502	4.584	0.496	0.448	0.541
D13 = Empowerment	S65_68	4.614	4.576	4.652	0.466	0.426	0.505
D14 = Inclusive education	S69_72	4.570	4.518	4.625	0.649	0.600	0.701
B3 = Leadership, entrepreneurship and teachers’ empowerment	S52_72	4.581	4.541	4.621	0.494	0.451	0.540

Source: authors’ elaboration.

Table 2

ANOVA according to sex of participants.

Item	M = Women				H = Men
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p-Value	η2p	Direction
P52	4.78	0.49	4.78	4.78	4.66	0.50	4.66	4.67	8.403	0.004	0.013	H < M
P53	4.71	0.64	4.71	4.71	4.57	0.58	4.57	4.57	8.616	0.003	0.014	H < M
P54	4.75	0.58	4.75	4.75	4.66	0.57	4.66	4.67	3.449	0.064	0.006
P55	4.59	0.74	4.58	4.59	4.49	0.78	4.48	4.49	2.557	0.110	0.004
P56	4.48	0.75	4.47	4.48	4.48	0.73	4.48	4.48	0.001	0.977	0.000
P57	4.66	0.65	4.66	4.66	4.54	0.70	4.54	4.55	4.461	0.035	0.007	H < M
P58	4.65	0.55	4.65	4.65	4.54	0.54	4.54	4.55	6.120	0.014	0.010	H < M
P59	4.61	0.60	4.61	4.62	4.39	0.68	4.39	4.40	18.258	0.000	0.029	H < M
P60	4.73	0.56	4.73	4.74	4.62	0.64	4.62	4.62	5.252	0.022	0.008	H < M
P61	4.44	0.76	4.44	4.44	4.40	0.74	4.40	4.40	0.440	0.507	0.001
P62	4.08	0.51	4.08	4.08	4.04	0.54	4.04	4.05	0.595	0.441	0.001
P63	4.77	0.59	4.77	4.77	4.67	0.66	4.67	4.67	4.081	0.044	0.007	H < M
P64	4.83	0.47	4.83	4.83	4.79	0.45	4.79	4.79	1.448	0.229	0.002
P65	4.80	0.50	4.80	4.80	4.75	0.47	4.75	4.75	1.697	0.193	0.003
P66	4.75	0.53	4.75	4.75	4.75	0.47	4.75	4.75	0.000	0.984	0.000
P67	4.69	0.58	4.69	4.69	4.65	0.54	4.65	4.65	0.694	0.405	0.001
P68	4.30	0.72	4.30	4.30	4.22	0.74	4.22	4.22	1.913	0.167	0.003
P69	4.70	0.64	4.70	4.70	4.60	0.56	4.60	4.60	3.907	0.049	0.006	H < M
P70	4.69	0.65	4.69	4.69	4.60	0.56	4.59	4.60	3.558	0.060	0.006
P71	4.63	0.79	4.63	4.64	4.43	0.86	4.43	4.44	9.133	0.003	0.014	H < M
P72	4.50	0.72	4.50	4.50	4.41	0.76	4.41	4.41	2.202	0.138	0.004
S52_57	4.66	0.55	4.66	4.66	4.57	0.52	4.57	4.57	4.599	0.032	0.007	H < M
S58_64	4.59	0.49	4.59	4.59	4.49	0.49	4.49	4.50	5.635	0.018	0.009	H < M
S65_68	4.64	0.49	4.63	4.64	4.59	0.44	4.59	4.59	1.274	0.259	0.002
S69_72	4.63	0.65	4.63	4.63	4.51	0.64	4.51	4.51	5.266	0.022	0.008	H < M

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, Lower 95%. U, Upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p-value, statistical significance. η²p, Partial Eta squared. Source: authors’ elaboration.

Table 3

ANOVA according to ages of the participants.

Item	J = 25 Years Old or Less				A = 26–35 Years Old				M = 36–45 Years Old				E = 46–55 Years Old				R = Over 56 Years Old
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p-Value	η2p	Direction
P52	4.40	0.82	4.17	4.63	4.73	0.45	4.66	4.79	4.77	0.45	4.71	4.83	4.84	0.37	4.76	4.92	4.62	0.49	4.50	4.74	8351.771	0.000	0.051	J < R < A < M < E
P53	4.12	1.20	3.78	4.45	4.69	0.48	4.62	4.76	4.70	0.54	4.63	4.77	4.73	0.45	4.63	4.82	4.57	0.50	4.45	4.69	11,937.915	0.000	0.071	J < R < A < M < E
P54	4.19	0.86	3.95	4.43	4.79	0.50	4.72	4.86	4.74	0.53	4.67	4.81	4.83	0.38	4.75	4.91	4.60	0.65	4.45	4.76	14,206.890	0.000	0.084	J < R < M < A < E
P55	4.04	0.93	3.78	4.30	4.53	0.78	4.42	4.65	4.65	0.69	4.56	4.74	4.61	0.70	4.46	4.76	4.41	0.78	4.22	4.60	7951.246	0.000	0.049	J < R < A < E < M
P56	3.94	1.19	3.61	4.27	4.48	0.63	4.38	4.57	4.62	0.66	4.53	4.70	4.48	0.69	4.33	4.62	4.40	0.67	4.23	4.56	9687.701	0.000	0.059	J < R < A.E < M
P57	4.13	0.93	3.88	4.39	4.65	0.58	4.57	4.74	4.69	0.63	4.61	4.77	4.63	0.68	4.48	4.77	4.49	0.68	4.32	4.65	8448.073	0.000	0.051	J < R < E < A < M
P58	4.15	0.80	3.93	4.38	4.65	0.49	4.58	4.73	4.67	0.51	4.61	4.73	4.61	0.49	4.51	4.72	4.53	0.50	4.41	4.65	11,118.059	0.000	0.067	J < R < E < A < M
P59	4.15	0.80	3.93	4.38	4.56	0.57	4.48	4.65	4.58	0.60	4.50	4.66	4.49	0.69	4.34	4.64	4.37	0.73	4.19	4.54	5954.032	0.000	0.037	J < R < E < A < M
P60	4.25	0.81	4.02	4.48	4.78	0.50	4.70	4.85	4.73	0.56	4.66	4.80	4.63	0.68	4.48	4.77	4.62	0.60	4.47	4.76	8951.681	0.000	0.054	J < R.E < M < A
P61	3.87	1.21	3.53	4.20	4.42	0.64	4.33	4.52	4.54	0.68	4.45	4.63	4.45	0.71	4.30	4.60	4.38	0.67	4.22	4.54	9265.486	0.000	0.056	J < R < A < E < M
P62	3.85	0.72	3.64	4.05	4.04	0.39	3.98	4.10	4.11	0.53	4.04	4.18	3.98	0.45	3.88	4.07	4.22	0.62	4.07	4.37	5099.232	0.000	0.032	J < E < A < M < R
P63	4.33	0.90	4.08	4.58	4.77	0.56	4.68	4.85	4.78	0.56	4.71	4.85	4.73	0.66	4.59	4.87	4.69	0.65	4.53	4.85	6086.444	0.000	0.038	J < R < E < A < M
P64	4.40	0.87	4.16	4.65	4.84	0.38	4.78	4.90	4.86	0.40	4.81	4.91	4.84	0.37	4.76	4.92	4.84	0.37	4.75	4.93	12,027.440	0.000	0.072	J < R.A.E < M
P65	4.29	0.87	4.05	4.53	4.83	0.39	4.77	4.89	4.82	0.43	4.77	4.87	4.83	0.38	4.75	4.91	4.78	0.42	4.68	4.88	15,926.032	0.000	0.093	J < R < M < A.E
P66	4.21	0.87	3.97	4.45	4.81	0.41	4.75	4.87	4.82	0.43	4.76	4.87	4.84	0.37	4.76	4.92	4.68	0.47	4.56	4.79	20,207.855	0.000	0.115	J < R < A.M < E
P67	4.12	0.90	3.86	4.37	4.70	0.50	4.63	4.77	4.76	0.49	4.69	4.82	4.73	0.47	4.63	4.83	4.63	0.49	4.51	4.75	16,113.269	0.000	0.094	J < R < A < E < M
P68	3.90	0.77	3.69	4.12	4.23	0.75	4.12	4.34	4.37	0.69	4.28	4.46	4.26	0.65	4.12	4.40	4.22	0.81	4.03	4.42	4665.385	0.000	0.029	J < R.A < E < M
P69	4.13	1.19	3.80	4.47	4.68	0.47	4.61	4.75	4.72	0.53	4.66	4.79	4.73	0.45	4.63	4.82	4.62	0.49	4.50	4.74	11,760.609	0.000	0.070	J < R < A < M.E
P70	4.15	1.19	3.82	4.49	4.67	0.47	4.60	4.74	4.71	0.55	4.64	4.78	4.73	0.45	4.63	4.82	4.59	0.50	4.47	4.71	10,446.831	0.000	0.063	J < R < A < M < E
P71	4.17	1.25	3.83	4.52	4.51	0.81	4.38	4.63	4.61	0.77	4.51	4.71	4.58	0.72	4.43	4.73	4.54	0.78	4.36	4.73	3127.303	0.000	0.020	J < A < R < E < M
P72	4.29	0.91	4.03	4.54	4.38	0.75	4.26	4.49	4.56	0.69	4.48	4.65	4.47	0.69	4.32	4.61	4.38	0.77	4.20	4.57	2696.327	0.000	0.017	J < A.R < E < M
S52_57	4.14	0.89	3.89	4.39	4.64	0.47	4.58	4.71	4.70	0.48	4.63	4.76	4.69	0.45	4.59	4.78	4.51	0.48	4.40	4.63	13,749.005	0.000	0.081	J < R < A < E < M
S58_64	4.14	0.79	3.92	4.36	4.58	0.40	4.52	4.64	4.61	0.45	4.55	4.67	4.53	0.49	4.43	4.64	4.52	0.47	4.41	4.63	10,541.560	0.000	0.063	J < R < E < A < M
S65_68	4.13	0.78	3.91	4.35	4.64	0.40	4.58	4.70	4.69	0.41	4.64	4.74	4.66	0.37	4.59	4.74	4.58	0.39	4.48	4.67	18,132.129	0.000	0.104	J < R < A < E < M
S69_72	4.19	1.10	3.88	4.49	4.56	0.58	4.47	4.64	4.65	0.59	4.58	4.73	4.63	0.55	4.51	4.74	4.53	0.57	4.39	4.67	5942.827	0.000	0.037	J < R < A < E < M

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, Lower 95%. U, Upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p-value, statistical significance. η²p, Partial Eta squared. Source: authors’ elaboration.

Table 4

ANOVA according to the position held at a center.

Item	D = Director				I = Research Staff				M = Primary-School Teacher				O = Counsellor
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p-Value	η2p	Direction
P52	4.78	0.43	4.57	4.99	4.51	0.78	4.31	4.70	4.76	0.43	4.69	4.84	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	2.274	0.027	0.025	R < U.M. T
P53	4.67	0.49	4.43	4.91	4.30	1.14	4.01	4.59	4.71	0.47	4.63	4.79	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	3.501	0.001	0.038	R < U.M.T
P54	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.30	0.85	4.09	4.52	4.75	0.50	4.67	4.84	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	5.693	0.000	0.061	R < T.P.M.U.D.O
P55	4.50	0.79	4.11	4.89	4.22	0.91	3.99	4.45	4.66	0.68	4.54	4.78	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	2.828	0.007	0.031	R < M.T
P56	4.22	0.65	3.90	4.54	3.90	1.06	3.64	4.17	4.68	0.58	4.58	4.79	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	7.939	0.000	0.083	R < U.T.P.M
P57	4.56	0.70	4.21	4.91	4.32	0.88	4.10	4.54	4.71	0.60	4.60	4.81	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	2.158	0.036	0.024	R < U.M
P58	4.67	0.49	4.43	4.91	4.33	0.78	4.14	4.53	4.65	0.49	4.57	4.74	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	2.928	0.005	0.032	R < U.M.T
P59	4.61	0.70	4.26	4.96	4.33	0.78	4.14	4.53	4.55	0.59	4.44	4.65	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	1.388	0.208	0.016
P60	4.78	0.65	4.46	5.10	4.38	0.79	4.18	4.58	4.72	0.53	4.63	4.81	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	3.147	0.003	0.035	R < U.M
P61	4.28	0.67	3.95	4.61	3.81	1.06	3.54	4.08	4.62	0.60	4.51	4.72	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	8.220	0.000	0.086	R < U.P.T.M
P62	4.06	0.54	3.79	4.32	3.89	0.65	3.73	4.05	4.15	0.53	4.05	4.24	4.44	0.53	4.04	4.85	2.858	0.006	0.032	R < M
P63	4.72	0.67	4.39	5.05	4.44	0.86	4.23	4.66	4.79	0.52	4.70	4.88	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	2.468	0.017	0.027	R < U.M
P64	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.51	0.80	4.31	4.71	4.86	0.37	4.80	4.93	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	5.129	0.000	0.055	R < T.U.M
P65	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.43	0.80	4.23	4.63	4.83	0.40	4.76	4.90	5.00	0.00	5.00	5.00	6.005	0.000	0.064	R < T.P.U.M.D.O
P66	4.83	0.38	4.64	5.02	4.35	0.81	4.15	4.55	4.83	0.40	4.76	4.90	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	7.967	0.000	0.083	R < T.P.U.M.D
P67	4.72	0.46	4.49	4.95	4.29	0.87	4.07	4.50	4.76	0.46	4.68	4.84	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	5.276	0.000	0.057	R < U.P.T.M
P68	4.56	0.78	4.17	4.95	4.21	0.83	4.00	4.41	4.30	0.67	4.18	4.42	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	1.730	0.099	0.019
P69	4.72	0.46	4.49	4.95	4.29	1.13	4.00	4.57	4.75	0.44	4.67	4.82	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	4.207	0.000	0.046	R < U.T.M
P70	4.72	0.46	4.49	4.95	4.30	1.13	4.02	4.59	4.75	0.44	4.67	4.82	4.56	0.53	4.15	4.96	3.642	0.001	0.040	R < U.T.M
P71	4.50	0.79	4.11	4.89	4.35	1.17	4.06	4.64	4.62	0.73	4.50	4.75	4.11	1.05	3.30	4.92	1.776	0.089	0.020
P72	4.22	0.73	3.86	4.59	4.24	0.80	4.04	4.44	4.60	0.68	4.48	4.72	4.00	1.00	3.23	4.77	2.573	0.013	0.028	R < M
S52_57	4.59	0.48	4.35	4.83	4.26	0.85	4.05	4.47	4.71	0.43	4.64	4.79	4.54	0.51	4.14	4.93	4.962	0.000	0.053	R < U.T.M
S58_64	4.56	0.50	4.32	4.81	4.24	0.75	4.05	4.43	4.62	0.40	4.55	4.69	4.71	0.29	4.49	4.93	4.268	0.000	0.046	R < U.T.M
S65_68	4.74	0.39	4.54	4.93	4.32	0.77	4.12	4.51	4.68	0.37	4.62	4.74	4.56	0.30	4.32	4.79	4.671	0.000	0.050	R < U.T.M.D
S69_72	4.54	0.56	4.26	4.82	4.29	1.01	4.04	4.55	4.68	0.54	4.59	4.77	4.31	0.77	3.71	4.90	2.752	0.008	0.030	R < U.T.M
Item	S = Secretary				P = Secondary-School Teacher				U = University Teacher				T = Other
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p- value	η2p	Direction
P52	4.64	0.50	4.30	4.98	4.70	0.47	4.53	4.87	4.74	0.45	4.69	4.79	4.79	0.45	4.68	4.90	2.274	0.027	0.025	R < U.M. T
P53	4.55	0.52	4.19	4.90	4.57	0.50	4.38	4.75	4.67	0.51	4.61	4.73	4.73	0.57	4.59	4.87	3.501	0.001	0.038	R < U.M.T
P54	4.82	0.40	4.55	5.09	4.70	0.47	4.53	4.87	4.76	0.54	4.70	4.82	4.68	0.59	4.54	4.83	5.693	0.000	0.061	R < T.P.M.U.D.O
P55	4.36	0.92	3.74	4.98	4.57	0.73	4.29	4.84	4.54	0.77	4.45	4.62	4.67	0.64	4.51	4.82	2.828	0.007	0.031	R < M.T
P56	4.55	0.69	4.08	5.01	4.57	0.73	4.29	4.84	4.50	0.68	4.42	4.57	4.55	0.71	4.37	4.72	7.939	0.000	0.083	R < U.T.P.M
P57	4.55	0.69	4.08	5.01	4.57	0.73	4.29	4.84	4.62	0.65	4.54	4.69	4.64	0.67	4.47	4.80	2.158	0.036	0.024	R < U.M
P58	4.55	0.52	4.19	4.90	4.53	0.51	4.34	4.72	4.61	0.51	4.55	4.67	4.71	0.52	4.58	4.84	2.928	0.005	0.032	R < U.M.T
P59	4.36	0.67	3.91	4.82	4.33	0.71	4.07	4.60	4.51	0.63	4.44	4.59	4.61	0.70	4.43	4.78	1.388	0.208	0.016
P60	4.73	0.65	4.29	5.16	4.53	0.73	4.26	4.81	4.71	0.59	4.64	4.78	4.71	0.55	4.58	4.85	3.147	0.003	0.035	R < U.M
P61	4.45	0.69	3.99	4.92	4.50	0.73	4.23	4.77	4.44	0.69	4.36	4.52	4.53	0.71	4.36	4.70	8.220	0.000	0.086	R < U.P.T.M
P62	4.36	0.67	3.91	4.82	4.03	0.56	3.83	4.24	4.04	0.46	3.98	4.09	4.08	0.54	3.94	4.21	2.858	0.006	0.032	R < M
P63	4.73	0.65	4.29	5.16	4.63	0.72	4.37	4.90	4.75	0.61	4.68	4.82	4.70	0.61	4.55	4.85	2.468	0.017	0.027	R < U.M
P64	4.82	0.40	4.55	5.09	4.77	0.43	4.61	4.93	4.86	0.37	4.82	4.90	4.77	0.52	4.64	4.90	5.129	0.000	0.055	R < T.U.M
P65	4.82	0.40	4.55	5.09	4.77	0.43	4.61	4.93	4.82	0.41	4.78	4.87	4.73	0.54	4.59	4.86	6.005	0.000	0.064	R < T.P.U.M.D.O
P66	4.64	0.50	4.30	4.98	4.73	0.45	4.57	4.90	4.82	0.41	4.77	4.86	4.73	0.54	4.59	4.86	7.967	0.000	0.083	R < T.P.U.M.D
P67	4.64	0.50	4.30	4.98	4.70	0.47	4.53	4.87	4.69	0.50	4.63	4.75	4.74	0.56	4.60	4.88	5.276	0.000	0.057	R < U.P.T.M
P68	4.27	0.90	3.67	4.88	4.07	0.58	3.85	4.28	4.21	0.74	4.13	4.30	4.45	0.68	4.29	4.62	1.730	0.099	0.019
P69	4.55	0.52	4.19	4.90	4.63	0.49	4.45	4.82	4.68	0.51	4.62	4.73	4.71	0.55	4.58	4.85	4.207	0.000	0.046	R < U.T.M
P70	4.55	0.52	4.19	4.90	4.63	0.49	4.45	4.82	4.67	0.53	4.61	4.73	4.67	0.56	4.53	4.81	3.642	0.001	0.040	R < U.T.M
P71	4.18	0.98	3.52	4.84	4.43	0.82	4.13	4.74	4.53	0.81	4.44	4.62	4.71	0.65	4.55	4.87	1.776	0.089	0.020
P72	4.27	0.90	3.67	4.88	4.50	0.73	4.23	4.77	4.44	0.75	4.36	4.53	4.56	0.64	4.40	4.72	2.573	0.013	0.028	R < M
S52_57	4.58	0.51	4.23	4.92	4.61	0.49	4.43	4.79	4.64	0.48	4.58	4.69	4.67	0.52	4.55	4.80	4.962	0.000	0.053	R < U.T.M
S58_64	4.57	0.51	4.23	4.91	4.48	0.53	4.28	4.67	4.56	0.45	4.51	4.61	4.59	0.48	4.47	4.71	4.268	0.000	0.046	R < U.T.M
S65_68	4.59	0.39	4.33	4.85	4.57	0.35	4.43	4.70	4.64	0.41	4.59	4.68	4.66	0.51	4.54	4.79	4.671	0.000	0.050	R < U.T.M.D
S69_72	4.39	0.72	3.90	4.87	4.55	0.62	4.32	4.78	4.58	0.61	4.51	4.65	4.66	0.54	4.53	4.80	2.752	0.008	0.030	R < U.T.M

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, Lower 95%. U, Upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p-value, statistical significance. η²p, Partial Eta squared. Source: authors’ elaboration.

Table 5

ANOVA according to teaching experience of participants.

Item	P = 0–5 Years				S = 6–15 Years				T = 16–25 Years				C = Over 25 Years
	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	M	SD	L	U	F	p-Value	η2p	Direction
P52	4.69	0.62	4.69	4.70	4.64	0.51	4.63	4.64	4.81	0.40	4.81	4.81	4.68	0.47	4.68	4.68	4.816	0.003	0.023	S < T
P53	4.55	0.90	4.55	4.56	4.60	0.58	4.60	4.60	4.70	0.48	4.70	4.70	4.68	0.47	4.68	4.68	1.981	0.116	0.010
P54	4.52	0.76	4.51	4.52	4.72	0.53	4.72	4.72	4.74	0.52	4.74	4.75	4.85	0.43	4.84	4.85	6.218	0.000	0.029	P < S.T.C
P55	4.41	0.83	4.40	4.41	4.59	0.76	4.59	4.60	4.58	0.71	4.58	4.59	4.43	0.83	4.42	4.44	2.284	0.078	0.011
P56	4.30	0.95	4.29	4.30	4.61	0.64	4.61	4.61	4.47	0.72	4.47	4.48	4.43	0.55	4.43	4.43	4.590	0.003	0.022	P < S
P57	4.44	0.82	4.44	4.45	4.72	0.54	4.72	4.72	4.58	0.71	4.58	4.58	4.63	0.54	4.62	4.63	4.370	0.005	0.021	P < S
P58	4.50	0.70	4.50	4.50	4.60	0.52	4.60	4.60	4.65	0.49	4.64	4.65	4.60	0.49	4.59	4.60	1.902	0.128	0.009
P59	4.44	0.71	4.44	4.44	4.55	0.56	4.55	4.56	4.51	0.68	4.50	4.51	4.47	0.67	4.47	4.48	0.782	0.504	0.004
P60	4.55	0.70	4.55	4.55	4.73	0.51	4.73	4.73	4.67	0.66	4.66	4.67	4.78	0.45	4.77	4.78	2.910	0.034	0.014
P61	4.19	0.97	4.19	4.20	4.58	0.64	4.58	4.58	4.40	0.73	4.40	4.41	4.43	0.55	4.43	4.43	6.607	0.000	0.031	P < S
P62	3.92	0.57	3.92	3.93	4.15	0.47	4.15	4.15	4.02	0.54	4.02	4.03	4.18	0.45	4.18	4.18	6.252	0.000	0.029	P < S.C
P63	4.56	0.74	4.56	4.56	4.84	0.49	4.84	4.84	4.67	0.69	4.66	4.67	4.85	0.43	4.84	4.85	6.660	0.000	0.031	P.T < S.C
P64	4.65	0.66	4.65	4.66	4.88	0.38	4.88	4.89	4.81	0.42	4.80	4.81	4.89	0.31	4.89	4.89	7.172	0.000	0.034	P < T.S.C
P65	4.57	0.68	4.56	4.57	4.87	0.39	4.87	4.88	4.77	0.44	4.77	4.77	4.88	0.33	4.87	4.88	11.355	0.000	0.052	P < T.S.C
P66	4.53	0.70	4.52	4.53	4.87	0.40	4.87	4.87	4.77	0.44	4.76	4.77	4.78	0.42	4.77	4.78	12.228	0.000	0.056	P < T.C.S
P67	4.47	0.78	4.46	4.47	4.75	0.48	4.75	4.75	4.70	0.49	4.69	4.70	4.69	0.46	4.69	4.70	6.973	0.000	0.033	P < C.T.S
P68	4.14	0.69	4.13	4.14	4.39	0.78	4.39	4.39	4.25	0.68	4.24	4.25	4.15	0.79	4.15	4.16	3.704	0.012	0.018	P < S
P69	4.50	0.87	4.50	4.50	4.71	0.55	4.71	4.71	4.67	0.50	4.67	4.67	4.67	0.47	4.66	4.67	3.227	0.022	0.015	P < S
P70	4.50	0.87	4.50	4.50	4.71	0.55	4.71	4.71	4.66	0.52	4.66	4.66	4.64	0.48	4.64	4.64	3.023	0.029	0.014	P < S
P71	4.50	0.95	4.49	4.51	4.56	0.83	4.56	4.57	4.55	0.76	4.54	4.55	4.46	0.85	4.45	4.46	0.359	0.783	0.002
P72	4.47	0.73	4.47	4.48	4.50	0.77	4.50	4.50	4.47	0.70	4.47	4.47	4.25	0.79	4.24	4.26	2.133	0.095	0.010
S52_57	4.48	0.72	4.48	4.49	4.65	0.48	4.65	4.65	4.65	0.49	4.65	4.65	4.62	0.45	4.61	4.62	2.876	0.036	0.014	P < T
S58_64	4.40	0.64	4.40	4.41	4.62	0.39	4.62	4.62	4.53	0.52	4.53	4.53	4.60	0.33	4.60	4.60	5.093	0.002	0.024	P < C.S
S65_68	4.42	0.63	4.42	4.43	4.72	0.42	4.72	4.72	4.62	0.40	4.62	4.62	4.63	0.33	4.62	4.63	10.396	0.000	0.048	P < T.C.S
S69_72	4.49	0.81	4.49	4.50	4.62	0.64	4.62	4.62	4.59	0.57	4.58	4.59	4.50	0.60	4.50	4.51	1.240	0.294	0.006

Abbreviations: M, mean. SD, standard deviation. L, Lower 95%. U, Upper 95%. F, F-statistic obtained from ANOVA. p-value, statistical significance. η²p, Partial Eta squared. Source: authors’ elaboration.

References

1. Correa, S.C. Liderazgo ejecutivo en un ambiente general escolar. Análisis neutrosófico del clima escolar. Neutrosophic Comput. Mach. Learn.; 2021; 18, pp. 7-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5525535]

2. Palomares-Ruiz, A.; Gargallo-Ibort, E. Liderazgo, emprendimiento y empoderamiento docente para generar sociedades inclusivas. Contextos Educ.; 2019; 24, pp. 5-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18172/con.4300]

3. Rosa, M.; Jiménez, A.; Jaramillo, A. El liderazgo una cualidad del docente 4.0 en las instituciones de educación superior en Colombia. Visión Educ.; 2022; 4, pp. 43-63.

4. Fundación Princesa de Girona: Learn, Connect, Educate! Generation of Teachers. Available online: https://www.fpdgi.org/es/programas/generacion-docentes/ (accessed on 17 March 2025).

5. Pellicer, C.; Álvarez, B.; Torrejón, J.L. Aprender a Emprender. Cómo Educar el Talento Emprendedor; Aulaplaneta: Barcelona, Spain, 2013; Available online: https://es.fpdgi.org/upload/projecte/aprender-a-emprenderesp.pdf (accessed on 17 March 2025).

6. Silva, J.M.; Rodrígues, C.; Silveirinha, C.; Mineiro, J.P.; Felício, P. La escuela portuguesa en el siglo XXI. Autonomía y participación. Educar; 2016; 52, pp. 195-214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5565/rev/educar.736]

7. Bacigalupo, M.; Kampylis, P.; Punie, Y.; Van Den Brande, L. EntreComp: The Entrepreneurship Competence Framework; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2016.

8. McCallum, E.; Weicht, R.; McMullan, L.; Price, A. EntreComp en Acción–Inspírate, Haz Que Suceda: Una Guía de Usuario Para el Marco de Competencias Emprendedoras Europeas; Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018.

9. Rodríguez, N. La Importancia de las Competencias Emprendedoras; YOUCOOPE CDTUC: Santander, Spain, 2021.

10. TÜBITAK TÜSSIDE. Leadership, Entrepreneurship and Teaching Seminars Project Has Passed 100 Weeks Behind. Available online: https://tusside.tubitak.gov.tr/en/leadership-entrepreneurship-and-teaching-seminars-project-has-passed-100-weeks/ (accessed on 18 March 2025).

11. UNICEF for Every Children. New Initiative to Help Ensure Children Learn Digital Skills for a Modern Workface. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/turkiye/en/press-releases/new-initiative-help-ensure-children-learn-digital-skills-modern-workforce (accessed on 18 March 2025).

12. Singh, A.; Korkmaz, B.; Kendi, C.; Cenudioğlu, C.; Dermidağ, E.; Singh, G.; Chui, M.; Kohal, O.; Tanrikulu, O.; Gökler, P. Future of Work. Turkey’s Talent Transformation in the Digital Era; McKinsey & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2020.

13. Fch Fundación Chile. + Comunidad: Center for Educational Leadership for Networked Improvement. Available online: https://fch.cl/en/initiative/center-for-educational-leadership-for-networked-improvement/ (accessed on 18 March 2025).

14. Educational Leadership Development Centre. Un Centro Para el Desarrollo del Liderazgo Educativo en la Educación Chilena; CEDLE: Santiago, Chile, 2020.

15. Leal, S.; Salomón, J.O.; Rivera, J. Impact of Authentic Leadership on Work Engagement and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Meditating Role of Motivation for Work. Int. J. Econ. Bus. Adm.; 2021; 9, pp. 3-31. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/716]

16. Muñoz-Márquez, C.E.; Morales, R.; Domínguez, A.D.C. Model of psychological empowerment based on structural equations for predicting autonomy. Rev. Colomb. Psicol.; 2021; 30, pp. 55-69. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15446/rcp.v30n2.82149]

17. Palomares-Ruiz, A. Competencias y Empoderamiento Docente: Propuestas de Investigación e Innovación Educativas en Contextos Inclusivos; Editorial Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2016.

18. Pazmiño, G.A.; Beltrán, M.; Gallardo, W.M. Los estilos de liderazgo y su influencia en el desarrollo empresarial: Caso Pymes de la provincia de Tunguahua–Ecuador. Rev. PUCE; 2016; 103, pp. 355-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26807/revpuce.v0i103.45]

19. Fang, Y. Empoderamiento en los sectores comercial y de servicios. Pensam. Psicol.; 2010; 9, pp. 27-40.

20. Cárdenas, A.R.; Montoro, E. La formación del profesorado para la educación emprendedora. Educación Emprendedora. Fundamentos y Elementos Para la Transformación e Innovación Pedagógica, Bernal-Guerrero, A., Ed.; Editorial Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2021; pp. 141-166.

21. Vestergaard, L. Entrepreneurship in Education in the Baltic Sea Region—A Report Under EUSBSR Priority Area 8: Implementing the Small Business Act; Foundation for Entrepreneurship Young Enterprise: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2015; Available online: https://www.ffe-ye.dk/media/492194/entrepreneurship-in-education.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2025).

22. Asunción, S. Metodologías Activas: Herramientas para el empoderamiento docente. Rev. Docentes; 2019; 7, pp. 65-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37843/rted.v7i1.27]

23. Barrera, R.; Tapullima, C.; Pizzan, N.d.P.; Lucero, S. Actitudes emprendedoras en estudiantes de secundaria bajo el enfoque de trabajo colaborativo. Horizontes; 2022; 6, pp. 1204-1214. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.33996/revistahorizontes.v6i24.408]

24. Carpio, D.; Romero, H.; Intriago, G.; Arellano, F.; Troya, B. Liderazgo docente y la inclusión educativa en la educación superior. Salud Y Bienestar Colect.; 2020; 4, pp. 69-83.

25. Murillo, F.J.; Duk, C. Liderazgo Educativo Inclusivo. Rev. Lationam. Educ.; 2024; 17, pp. 17-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0718-73782023000200017]

26. Maureira, O.; Rojas, A.; Carrasco, A. Liderazgo escolar y desarrollo professional docente. Una Perspectiva de la Realidad de Casos de Establecimientos Educativos en Enseñanza Media Técnica Profesional; LOM Ediciones: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2024.

27. Granja, A.N.; Fajardo, L.L.; Rivera, J.L. Emprendimiento educativo: La educacion como catalizador del espíritu emprendedor e innovador en la Universidad técnica Estatal de Quevedo. Religación; 2024; 9, e2401280. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46652/rgn.v9i42.1280]

28. Echevarría, M.C. Liderazgo directive para favorecer el rol del docente en las prácticas inclusivas. Rev. Educ. Incl.; 2022; 15, pp. 131-151.

29. Confederación Española de Personas con Discapacidad Física y Orgánica. Metodologías y enfoques inclusivos en la educación. Guía para el Conocimiento de Nuevas Metodologías de Enseñanza y Aprendizaje; COCEMFE: Madrid, Spain, 2017.

30. Otzen, T.; Manterola, C. Técnicas de Muestreo sobre una Población a Estudio. Int. J. Morphol.; 2017; 35, pp. 227-232. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-95022017000100037]

31. Pedrosa, I.; Suárez-Álvarez, J.; García-Cueto, E. Evidencias sobre la validez de contenido: Avances teóricos y métodos para su estimación. Acción Psicológica; 2014; 10, pp. 3-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ap.10.2.11820]

32. Soler, S.F.; Soler, L. Usos del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach en el análisis de instrumentos escritos. Rev. Med. Electrón.; 2012; 34, pp. 1-6.

33. Salinas, J.J. Metodologías de medición del riesgo de mercado. Innovar; 2009; 19, pp. 187-199.

34. Colás-Bravo, M.P. Retos de la Investigación Educativa tras la pandemia COVID-19. Rev. Investig. Educ.; 2021; 39, pp. 319-333. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/rie.469871]

35. Campos, A.; Marúm, E. Formación Emprendedora en la Educación Superior: Investigación y Buenas Prácticas; Ediciones Díaz de Santos: Madrid, Spain, 2022.

36. Fernanda, Y.; Gandoy, F.; Jara, C.; Pacenza, M.I. Liderazgo del docentes y niveles de empoderamiento de los estudiantes en un seminario de prácticas comunitarias de una universidad pública argentina. Cuad. Adm.; 2015; 31, pp. 68-79.

37. Rojas, L.M.; Di Fiore, M.E. Liderazgo transformacional para consolidar la responsabilidad social en instituciones educativas. Inf. Psicológicos; 2019; 21, pp. 117-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18566/infpsic.v21n1a08]

38. Rucoba, L.R.; Perea, D.; Rios, C.; Alarcón, K.; Gratelli, B.L. Educación para la Ciudadanía Global: Cómo Formar Líderes Sostenibles; Editorial Internacional Alema: Jipijapa, Ecuador, 2025.

39. Mora, M.J.; Martínez, F.R. Desarrollo local sostenible, responsabilidad social corporativa y emprendimiento social. Equidad Y Desarro.; 2018; 31, pp. 27-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19052/ed.4375]

40. Cuellar, M. Una mirada al emprendimiento cultural. Eur. Public Soc. Innov. Rev.; 2024; 9, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.31637/epsir-2024-1306]

41. Reimers, F. Educación Global para Mejorar el Mundo: Cómo Impulsar la Ciudadanía Global Desde la Escuela; Ediciones SM: Madrid, Spain, 2020.

42. Bernal, A.; Ibarrola, S. Liderazgo del profesor: Objetivo básico de la gestión educativa. Rev. Iberoam. Educ.; 2015; 67, pp. 55-70. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35362/rie670205]

43. Frank, M.; Ricci, E. Education for sustainability: Transforming school curricula. Perspect. Austral; 2023; 1, pp. 1-4. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.56294/pa20233]

44. Qiu, S.; Dooley, L. Gender differences in leadership style: A study on graduate students’ task and relationship orientations. Int. J. Leadersh.; 2018; 6, pp. 1-13.

45. Alharthi, F.B. Gender differences in perceptions of leadership and their influence on motivation among faculty members of Taif University. Front. Psychol.; 2024; 15, 1476526. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1476526]

46. Powell, K.C. The Role of Concept of Self and Societal Expectations in Academic and Career Achievement. J. Adult Educ.; 2009; 38, pp. 32-40.

47. Díaz, E.R. Liderazgo transformacional y equidad de género: El caso de estudiantes de posgrado. Univ. Empres.; 2020; 22, 39. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/empresa/a.7854]

48. Lee, A.N.; Nie, Y. Understanding teacher empowerment: Teachers’ perceptions of principal’s and immediate supervisor’s empowering behaviors, psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes. Teach. Teach. Educ.; 2014; 41, pp. 67-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.006]

49. Russel, T. Cambios paradigmáticos en la formación de profesores: Peligros, trampas y la promesa no cumplida del profesional reflexivo. Encount. Educ.; 2012; 13, pp. 71-91.

50. Mori, A. The power of mentorship: Enhancing teacher leadership through educational mentoring. Cardozo Arts Entertain. Law J.; 2024; 28, pp. 1-3.

51. Arruti, A.; Paños-Castro, J. International Entrepreneurship education for pre-service teachers: A longitudinal study. Educ. Train.; 2020; 62, pp. 825-841. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ET-04-2020-0098]

52. Pascual, J. Innovación Educativa: Un proceso construido sobre relaciones de poder. Rev. Educ. Política Y Soc.; 2019; 4, pp. 9-30. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15366/reps2019.4.2.001]

53. Cuesta, O.; Moreno, E. El concepto de liderazgo en los espacios educativos: Alcances y límites de un término elástico. Sophia; 2021; 17, e1010. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18634/sophiaj.17v.1i.1010]

54. Latorre-Cosculluela, C.; Vázquez-Toledo, S.; Rodríguez-Martínez, A.; Liesa-Orús, M. Design Thinking: Creatividad y pensamiento crítico en la universidad. Rev. Electron. Investig. Educ.; 2020; 22, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24320/redie.2020.22.e28.2917]

55. Iranzo-García, P.; Camarero-Figuerola, M.; Barrios-Arós, C.; Tierno-García, J.M. ¿Qué Opinan los Maestros sobre las Competencias de Liderazgo Escolar y sobre su Formación Inicial?. Reice-Revista Iberoam. Sobre Calid. Efic. Y Cambio En Educ.; 2018; 16, pp. 29-48. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15366/reice2018.16.3.002]

56. Nguyen, G.N.H.; Bower, M. Novice teacher technology-enhanced learning design practices: The case of the silent pedagogy. Br. J. Educ. Technol.; 2018; 49, pp. 1027-1043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12681]

57. Quispe, M.; Argota, G.; Huamán, C.A.; Bolaós, R.A.; Benites, J. Habilidades digitales y tecnoestrés en docentes universitarios mayores de 60 años. Medisan; 2023; 27, pp. 1-13.

58. Hernández, L. Liderazgo sostenible como estrategia de cambio en el sistema educativo venezolano. Rev. Docentes; 2020; 8, pp. 26-32.

59. Miras, J.; Longás, J. Liderazgo pedagógico y liderazgo ético: Perspectivas complementarias de la nueva dirección escolar. Rev. Estud. Exp. Educ.; 2020; 19, pp. 287-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.21703/rexe.20201941miras16]

60. Cortés, D.M. Liderazgo pedagógico y gestión educativa en el marco de la digitalidad: Una mirada crítico-humanista. Cieg; 2022; 54, pp. 95-105.

61. Pedraja, L. Desafíos para el profesorado en la sociedad del conocimiento. Ingeniare; 2012; 20, pp. 136-144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-33052012000100014]

62. Analuisa, P.A.; Del Pilar, R.; Villamar, J.L. Metodologías activas para el desarrollo del pensamiento crítico y la investigación. Cienc. Lat. Educ.; 2024; 8, pp. 10474-10499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.37811/cl_rcm.v8i3]

63. Morán, J.C.; Pico, E.M.; Marín, F.; Martínez, O. Metodologías activas en el fomento del pensamiento crítico de los estudiantes de bachillerato. Dom. Cienc.; 2024; 10, pp. 1712-1739.

64. Destrée, A.; Čajková, T. Municipalities and regions take action on global citizenship education. The Road Towards 2030; Platforma: Belgiu, Brussels, 2021.

65. Pegalajar, M.d.C.; Burgos, A.; Martínez, E. Educación para el Desarrollo Sostenible y Responsabilidad Social: Claves en la formación inicial del docente desde una revisión sistemática. Rie; 2022; 40, pp. 421-437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.6018/rie.458301]

66. Núñez, I.A. Educación para el desarrollo sostenible: Hacia una vision sociopedagógica. Controv. Y Concurr. Latinoam.; 2019; 11, pp. 291-307.