\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Entrepreneurship, Church Hegemony and Theological Seminary Education in South-South Nigeria},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2013-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2013)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2013-01-15}
\title{Entrepreneurship, Church Hegemony and Theological Seminary Education in South-South Nigeria}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{  Abam}

             \affil[1]{  Univesity of Calabar, Nigeria.}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 11 December 2012 Accepted: 5 January 2013 Published: 15 January 2013}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study aims to ascertain the relationship between and among curriculum outcomes, personality traits, gender role stereotype, and common business practices and entrepreneurial abilities of theological seminary graduates. The study used export-facto research design and examined the effects of curriculum outcome, personality traits, gender role stereotypes, common business practices on entrepreneurial abilities on theological seminary graduates using five questionnaires. Results indicated that the independent variables when taken together correlated negatively with the dependent variable. The correlation was weak. It also showed that majority of the independent variables did not predict or contribute to the dependent variable. Only cognitive curriculum outcomes did the study was limited to theological seminary graduates, and their learning outcomes, personality trait, gender role stereotype, common business practices, and entrepreneurial abilities. This is an example of an identification of entrepreneurial abilities among theological seminary graduates and their ability to close the divide between spiritual and secular ethical principles and practices. This because principles and practices which divide entrepreneurial training have not been introduced into the curriculum of theological seminaries. Equally, job diversity initiatives are not generally part of theological seminary pedagogy.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{curriculum outcomes, psycho-social characteristics, entrepreneurial abilities.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
rom inception the church implements divinely directed action goals. These goals require neither mediocre leadership styles, follow-up of people, responsibility. Nor schedule to thrive; but commitment to long hours of work, doing hard labour and assumption of responsibility \hyperref[b7]{(Mahoney, 2001)}. These, of course, demanded of the church minister the aptitude, temperament, intelligence, lifestyle arising from parental situations, church background, formal education, God's grace, divine enablement, experience and history of credibility \hyperref[b7]{(Mahoney, 2001)}.\par
So, in the Theological Seminary, the curriculum context associated with learners' achievement of curriculum outcomes remains that identified with homiletics, text, topics, typicality, exposition, biographies, analogies, and analysis (Row lands, 2001). These contents of the curriculum emphasise acquisition of vast amounts of well-organised domain specific knowledge and processing strategies. To this end, they also pay attention to abilities, which facilitate recognition of important problem features quickly, in order to access chunks of relevant problem-solving strategies and solve the apparent problems efficiently and correctly  {\ref (Anderson \& Leinharett, 2002;} Ericson \& Charness, 1994; \hyperref[b8]{Morris, 2002;}\hyperref[b2]{Chase \& Simon, 1973;}\hyperref[b4]{Gobet \& Simon, 1996;}\hyperref[b6]{Leighton, 2006 )}.\par
Achievement of curriculum outcomes is facilitated by activities like thinking aloud, correcting partners' errors and omissions, providing detailed and elaborate explanations and presenting information in alternative forms like diagrams and drawings. The theory of cognitive elaboration comes to play \hyperref[b12]{(Slavin, 1992;} {\ref Inebb, 1992)}. Consequently, activities such as soliciting learners' opinions, identifying differences in learners' opinion and interrelating divergent viewpoints remain fundamental to achievement of curriculum outcomes, therefore, also remains interaction among individuals of similar developmental levels (Yetter, Gutkin, Saunders, Galloway, Sobansky \& Song, 2006).\par
There is learners' collaboration on achievement of curriculum outcomes. This exists as a function of the quality of social interactions among learners. Learners work together under conditions of positive interdependence, in which each learner's contributions are necessary for the group to teach the stipulated goal, and specific group contingencies established to reward the group for achieving the goal \hyperref[b5]{(Johnson \& Johnson, 1990;}\hyperref[b13]{Slavin, 1996)}.\par
None of the curriculum context discussed above shows a process of using data, experimentation and discovery to find the procedures that would best fit Theological Seminary learners should they decide to change the overall culture of their profession (Schmidtke, Badhesha \& Moore, 2008). The training given in Theological Seminary is that which does not value diversity initiatives. This evident from the fact that diversity training and education programmes, organisational policies, monitoring programmes and career development programmes can not be identified of their curriculum. Their curriculum processes are not the type which increase cross cultural competence, awareness, and understanding among individuals through education programmes. They do not feature diversity Ultimately, such commitment to diversity in job place environment has resulted in a change in the demographics of church ministers' workplace. In some instances, the church remains ran by men and women who are their presidents and founders (Douglas, 2001). In case, they feature a day-to-day management of its affairs by its founder. However, in larger congregations, some element of delegation is, or could be done. In a few other cases, its founder could delegate its management entirely, but retaining overall control over policy decision.\par
Despite the increasing popularity in job diversity, without diversity training no common form of awareness appears to be characteristic of managers of churches. Not even awareness training, which increases individuals' sensitivity to diversity issues like job cultural differences and common cultural biases (Arai, Wanca-Twibault \& Shoekley-Zalabak, 2001) is given.\par
Although such training is not part of the Theological Seminary Curriculum, much is not understood about how initiatives of its recipients work in the enterprise sector and what factors influence their effectiveness as evidenced in the fact that: ? Decision making is often effected quickly because it often remains not necessary to consult with anybody else, apart from God and Bible; ? Consequences of decisions always remain the sole responsibility of the founder; ? The personality of the founder is often imprinted on the business of the church through his policies; ? It is always a unit small enough to make small-scale management possible; ? Difficulties of management often met in large organisations are often avoided (Pit field, 1977 ); ? The media banners, hand bills, and posters is a potent and necessary vehicle for publicity or propaganda (Pit field, 1977; Douglas, 2001 ); ? Capital required for starting and running the church is provided always by the founder; ? The risk, success and otherwise of running the church is undertaken alone by the founder and largely so according to his, or her entrepreneurial abilities. ? Its liabilities are not often limited; it failure could often lead to the sale of the founder's private assets ? The affairs of the church are not a separate legal personality; the founder is not distinguished from the affairs of the church  {\ref (Anyanwuocha, 2003)}. Finances needed to run the church always remain provided entirely by the founder. He or she does so with the believe that the world depends on each other. As such, he or she does the job of the church ministry in conjunction with what is obtainable of the larger society. The business of the church overseer becomes no longer simple but diversified. Hence it remains pertinent to find out whether training focused on biblical has any spill over effect on recipients' attitude, knowledge, skills and experiences towards another job or diversity in general.\par
Consequently, sound ethical principles and practices which were agreed to by professional bodies to control, or influence church ministers' behaviour, check and measure their performance, empower them to communicate well, enable them to understand and be strictly guided towards their oath, ensure they perform to standard are grossly abused (Imade \& Ogiugo,2009). This normally is despite the fact that such ethics are set after much study of the laws guiding the operation of the churches and the environment of practice in general.\par
The current study, therefore, addressed this gap examining whether curriculum outcomes, gender role stereotypes, personality traits and common business practices of the society relate Theological Seminary graduates' attitudes to entrepreneurship.\par
The purpose of the study is to investigate the relationships that exist among and between curriculum outcomes, gender role stereotypes, personality traits and common business practices of the society and the entrepreneurial abilities of the Theological Seminary graduates. The paper should interest church ministers and theological seminary students since there is a very little research that has examined how diversity has adulterated sound ethical spiritual principles and practices that characterise the clergy. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Statement of the Problem}]{Statement of the Problem}\par
In view of the foregoing, the study attempted to assess the current disposition of curriculum outcomes, gender role stereotypes, personality traits, and common business practices on the entrepreneurial skills of Theological Seminary graduates. Ultimately, the study was to come up with inferences on curriculum outcomes, gender role stereotypes, personality traits, and common business practices for Theological Seminary graduates to either enhance or undermine their entrepreneurial skills. Hence, the present study was ex post facto and committed to investigating the current level of theological seminary graduates' curriculum outcomes, personality traits, gender role stereotypes, and common business practices and their disposition towards their entrepreneurial skills in South-South Nigeria. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Research Question}]{Research Question}\par
This study specifically attempted to answer the following questions: a) What is the composite effect of curriculum outcomes, personality traits, gender role stereotypes and common business practices on entrepreneurial skills of Theological Seminary graduates?Y 2013 ear ( ) G b)\par
What is the relative effect of each of the independent variables on entrepreneurial skills of theological summary graduates? c) Which of the independent variables would predict entrepreneurial skills of theological seminary graduates?\par
IV. 
\section[{Methodology a) Research Design}]{Methodology a) Research Design}\par
The study was carried out using ex post-facto research design. The design was chosen because the study did not involve manipulation of variables but depended on information from respondents that had existed before the research was carried out. 
\section[{b) Population and Sample}]{b) Population and Sample}\par
All Theological Seminary graduates in South-South Nigeria were targetted for the study. Of these, 45 were purposively selected for the study. These were in the denominations of those unemployed 5 (11.36\%); those self employed 13 (29.54\%); those organized private sector employed 19 (43.18\%); and those government employed 8 (18.18\%). In all 10 (22.73\%) of the sampled Theological Seminary graduates were females; while 35 (79.54\%) were males. 
\section[{c) Research Instrument}]{c) Research Instrument}\par
The main instruments for the study were the Self Employment Characteristics Rating Questionnaires (SECRQ); the Common Small Scale Business Practice Questionnaire (CSBPQ); the Personality Job Creation Behaviour Inventory (PJCBI); the Gender Role stereotype Job Creation Inventory (GSJCI); the C-O Job Behaviour Inventory (COJBI). Each of the instruments is a 20-itemed questionnaire. They are modifications of those developed by the National Directorate of Employment (NDE) (1989); Hitchin (1996); Akinboye (2001) and Alexander (1996). 
\section[{d) Validity and Reliability}]{d) Validity and Reliability}\par
These questionnaires were given to five experts in the Teacher Education Department, University of Ibadan for review. Some comments about their wordings, arrangement of items and rating scale were made and incorporated into the final edition of the instruments. Cronbach Alpha reliability was then used to determine their reliability coefficient. These stood at 0.83, 0.81, 0.91, 0.92, 0.93, and 091 for SECRQ, CSBPQ, PJCBI, GSJCI, and COJBI respectively. 
\section[{e) Procedure for Data Collection}]{e) Procedure for Data Collection}\par
The investigators visited the Cross River State Ministry of Commerce and Industry: the National Directorate of Employment, Federal Secretariat Complex, Calabar; homes, Full Gospel Business Men Fellowship; Graduate Fellowship, Secondary schools, and business premises. This enabled them to obtain permission from leaders of the organisations to rationally select and use their members for the study. At the grant of the permission, members were selected and served the five questionnaires to complete. Twelve \hyperref[b12]{(12)} research assistants were employed to help administer and retrieve the questionnaires. The exercise lasted for 3 months.\par
V. 
\section[{Data Analysis and Result}]{Data Analysis and Result}\par
Data collected with the questionnaires were pooled and analysed through Multiple Regression statistic and tested at 0.05 level of significance. Table \hyperref[tab_0]{1} and 2 show summary of the results from data collected and analysed through the Multiple Regression Statistic. RQI : What is the composite effect of curriculum outcomes, personality traits, gender role stereotypes, and common business practices on entrepreneurial skills of Theological Seminary graduates.  \hyperref[tab_0]{1}, shows that a combination of the nine independent, sub-variables (masculine gender, feminine gender, introvert personality trait, extrovert personality trait, common business practices, cognitive curriculum outcomes, affective curriculum outcomes, psychomotor curriculum outcomes and field experience curriculum outcomes) yielded a coefficient of multiple regression of 0.378, multiple R square of 0.143 and Adjusted R square of 0.058. These results mean that 14.3\% of the variance in entrepreneurial abilities of theological seminary graduates can be explained by the combined influence of unemployment, curriculum outcomes and psycho-social characteristics.\par
The table also shows that the analysis of variance for the multiple regression data produced an Fratio of 1.671 which is not significant at 0.05 level. This indicate that the predictor variables have no combined effect on the criterion variable (entrepreneurial abilities).\par
RQ2 : What are the relative effects of the independent variables on entrepreneurial skills of Theological Seminary graduates? Results in Table \hyperref[tab_1]{2} show the Beta weights and provides indication of relative effects of each of the predictor variables on the prediction of theological seminary graduates' entrepreneurial abilities when other variables are controlled. The results show that only the tvalue for cognitive curriculum outcomes (2.243) was significant at 0.05 level.\par
All other t-values (-0.003, 0.251, -0.334, -0.167, -0.977, -0.168, -0.815, and -0.668) for masculine gender, feminine gender, introvert personality, extrovert personality, common business practices, affective, psycho-motor and field experience curriculum outcomes respectively were not significant at 0.05 level. These results imply that only cognitive curriculum outcomes significantly predicted the entrepreneurial abilities of theological seminary graduates in the study area. The predication equation, thus obtained is given as: Y 1 = 77.694 + 0.248 X . 
\section[{VI.}]{VI.} 
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
This study has revealed that the independent variables taken together correlate negatively with the dependent variable; and the correlation is weak. It also has shown that majority of the independent variables do not predict or contribute to the dependent variable. Only cognitive curriculum outcomes do. This finding is in line with the position of Alexander (1996) and Obe and Asiedu (1988). To the former cognitive curriculum outcomes are job related, because they warrant the process of logical thoughts and interpretations which relate events into meaningful patterns. The latter sees cognitive curriculum outcomes as not only enigmatic of internal thought processes: but rational decisions of what to do relative to likely outcome. To further support this position is Oyedeji  {\ref (1988)}. He portrays curriculum outcomes as a type of intelligence which features the ability to shift thinking from one approach or procedure to another. This type of cognitive outcome he sees as constant throughout life. 
\section[{VII.}]{VII.} 
\section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par
Arising from the foregoing the following recommendations are made. First, designers, planners and developers of the Theological Seminary curriculum should make its content and context cognitive outcome compliant. They should also organise workshops, conferences, talk-shops, seminars on the place of cognitive curriculum outcomes in the entrepreneurial development of Theological Seminary graduates. Researchers on entrepreneurial development should as well intensify efforts to document and publicise the prevalent state of entrepreneurship among Theological Seminary graduates as a way of creating greater awareness, knowledge and application of routine and non-routine tasks not only within the educational sector,  
\section[{G}]{G}\par
but also in the larger society. Finally, further investigation into knowledge and practices of entrepreneurship among theological seminary graduates may be conducted to either support or reject some of the findings of this small scale study. Such additional investigation may need to consider several other discussions like actual classroom situations and lecturer qualifications which were not taken into consideration in the present study.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5991189427312775\textwidth}P{0.018722466960352423\textwidth}P{0.0936123348017621\textwidth}P{0.05616740088105727\textwidth}P{0.044933920704845816\textwidth}P{0.037444933920704845\textwidth}}
Multiple R = 0.378\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Multiple R 2 = 0.143\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Multiple R 2 (Adjusted) = 0.058}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Standard Error of Estimate = 9.530}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\multicolumn{2}{l}{Sources of variation Df}\tabcellsep SS\tabcellsep MS\tabcellsep F-ratio\tabcellsep Sig.F\\
Regression\tabcellsep 4\tabcellsep 606.990\tabcellsep 151.746\tabcellsep 1.671\tabcellsep 0.176\\
Residual\tabcellsep 40\tabcellsep 3632.121\tabcellsep 90.803\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Total\tabcellsep 44\tabcellsep 4239.111\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
P>0.05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Table\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_0}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.3844346549192364\textwidth}P{0.09985315712187959\textwidth}P{0.06240822320117474\textwidth}P{0.10234948604992658\textwidth}P{0.07988252569750366\textwidth}P{0.0711453744493392\textwidth}P{0.049926578560939794\textwidth}}
Variable\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{un-standardised B S.E.B}\tabcellsep Standardised Coefficient Beta (?)\tabcellsep T-ratio\tabcellsep Sig t\tabcellsep Rank\\
Masculine gender role stereotype\tabcellsep -5.280\tabcellsep 0.167\tabcellsep -0.001\tabcellsep -0.003\tabcellsep 0.998\tabcellsep 9 th\\
Feminine gender role stereotype\tabcellsep 3.328\tabcellsep 0.133\tabcellsep 0.061\tabcellsep 0.251\tabcellsep 0.803\tabcellsep 8 th\\
Introvert personality trait\tabcellsep -5.538\tabcellsep 0.166\tabcellsep -0.191\tabcellsep -0.334\tabcellsep 0.740\tabcellsep 6 th\\
Extrovert personality trait\tabcellsep -0.152\tabcellsep 0.130\tabcellsep 0.197\tabcellsep -0.167\tabcellsep 0.251\tabcellsep 5 th\\
Common business practices\tabcellsep 0.192\tabcellsep 0.197\tabcellsep 0.323\tabcellsep -0.977\tabcellsep 0.333\tabcellsep 2 nd\\
Cognitive curriculum outcomes\tabcellsep 0.248\tabcellsep 0.111\tabcellsep 0.520\tabcellsep 2.243\tabcellsep 0.031*\tabcellsep 1 st\\
Affective curriculum outcomes\tabcellsep -0.132\tabcellsep 0.113\tabcellsep -0.319\tabcellsep -0.168\tabcellsep 0.251\tabcellsep 3 rd\\
Psycho-motor curriculum outcomes\tabcellsep -7.708\tabcellsep 0.095\tabcellsep -0.189\tabcellsep -0.815\tabcellsep 0.421\tabcellsep 7 th\\
Field experience curriculum outcomes\tabcellsep -8.383\tabcellsep 0.125\tabcellsep 0.199\tabcellsep -0.668\tabcellsep 0.508\tabcellsep 4 th\\
(Constant)\tabcellsep 77.694\tabcellsep 7.911\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 9.821\tabcellsep 0.000*\tabcellsep \\
*Significant at p<0.05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2013 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Schmidtke and Badhesha]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{},  		 			J Schmidtke 		,  		 			R Badhesha 		.  		 	 
\bibitem[Yetter et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{},  		 			G Yetter 		,  		 			T ; Gutkin 		,  		 			R B Saunders 		,  		 			S Y Song 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Experimental Education}  		2006. 74  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Mahoney (ed.) ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{(Ed) The shepherd's Staff. California: World Map},  		 			R Mahoney 		.  		R. Mahoney (ed.)  		2001.  	 	 (Planning for church growth) 
\bibitem[R. Mahoney (ed.) ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{(Ed) The shepherd's Staff. California: World Map},  		R. Mahoney (ed.)  		2001.  	 	 (Prepare a sermon/bible study) 
\bibitem[Arai et al. ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Communication theory and Training approaches for multi cultural diverse organisations: Have academics and practitioners missed the connections? Public Personnel Management},  		 			M Arai 		,  		 			M ; Wanca-Thibautt 		,  		 			P Shockley-Zalabak 		.  		2001. 30 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Johnson and Johnson ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Cooperative learning and achievement’.  		 			D W Johnson 		,  		 			R T Johnson 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cooperative learning: Theory and research},  				 			S Shanon 		 (ed.)  		 (New York)  		1990. Praeger.  	 
\bibitem[Ericsson and Charness ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{Experts performance: Its structure and acquisition},  		 			K A Ericsson 		,  		 			N Charness 		.  		1994. American Psychologists. 49 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Anderson and Leinhardt ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Maps as representations: Expert novice Comparison of project understanding’.  		 			K C Anderson 		,  		 			G Leinhardt 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognition and Instructions}  		2002. 20 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Morris ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Mathematics reasoning: Adult's ability to make the inductive-deductive distinction’.  		 			A Morris 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognitive and Instruction}  		2002. 20 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Chase and Simon ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Perception in chess’.  		 			W G Chase 		,  		 			H A Simon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognitive Psychology}  		1973. 4 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Slavin ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		‘Research on co-operative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know’.  		 			J E Slavin 		.  	 	 		\textit{Contemporary Education Psychology}  		1996. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Leighton ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘Teaching and assessing deductive reasoning skills’.  		 			J P Leighton 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of Experimental Education}  		2006. 2006. 74  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Gobet and Simon ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Templates in chess memory. A mechanism for recalling several boards’.  		 			F Gobet 		,  		 			H A Simon 		.  	 	 		\textit{Cognitive Psychology}  		1996. 31 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Webb (ed.) ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		\textit{Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups},  		 			N M Webb 		.  		R. Hertz-Lazarowitz \& N. Miller (ed.)  		1992. UK: Cambridge University Press.  	 	 (Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning) 
\bibitem[Moore ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘The effects of diversity training on specific and general attitudes towards diversity’.  		 			S D Moore 		.  	 	 		\textit{Multicultural Education \& Journal}  		2008. 2  (2)  p. 106.  	 
\bibitem[Slavin (ed.) ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		\textit{When and why does cooperative learning increase achievements? Theoretical, empirical perspectives},  		 			J E Slavin 		.  		R. Hertz-Lazarowitz \& N. Miller (ed.)  		1992. UK: Cambridge University Press.  	 	 (Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning) 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}