Conference Session

Institutionalizing Entrepreneurship and Innovation

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Elizabeth Nilsen, Purdue University; Edward F. Morrison, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering); Raquel Asencio, Purdue University; Scott Hutcheson, Purdue University, School of Engineering Technology

Tagged Topics

Diversity

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

Asking participants to reflect on how the following factors may have impacted their work: § Team size and composition; § Leader structure (single leader vs. co-leader); § External circumstances.Category Description ExampleCourses Efforts to either design a new Re-organizing an introductory course or to substantially engineering course around a set of revise an existing offering real-life scenarios and the use of design thinkingCredentials Efforts to introduce a new A major, minor or certificate in program of study available to innovation

Conference Session

Exploring the Entrepreneurial and Innovation Mindset

Collection

2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Mark Schar, Stanford University; Shannon Katherine Gilmartin, Stanford University; Angela Harris, Stanford University; Beth Rieken, Stanford University; Sheri Sheppard, Stanford University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

was discussed and adjusted. To compensate for a lack of an item describing“associational thinking” in the original Dyer scale, two additional statements were developed todescribe this construct.Finally, to convert the modified behavioral statements from an agree-disagree scale into a self-efficacy measure, the scale instructions were adjusted to reflect a self-efficacy intent (“Pleasethink about how confident you are in your ability to do these activities”). A comparison of theoriginal Dyer et al. IBS behavioral items and the restated ISE.5 self-efficacy items is shown inAppendix A.4.0 MethodsThe validity and reliability of the ISE.5 measure was confirmed through three studies. Study 1outlines the process of evolving the Dyer et al. scale

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division – Evaluating Student Behaviors and Attitudes

Collection

2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Todd M. Fernandez, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Genisson Silva Coutinho, Purdue University, West Lafayette; M. D. Wilson, Purdue University, West Lafayette; Stephen R Hoffmann, Purdue University, West Lafayette

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

Education Explorer's Fellowship and Dr.Daniel Radcliffe. The authors wish to thank them for their support. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of those who funded this project.Bibliography1. Pittaway, L. & Cope, J. Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Review of the Evidence. Int. Small Bus. J. 25, 479–510 (2007).2. Matlay, H. & Carey, C. Entrepreneurship

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division Technical Session 8

Collection

2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Nathan John Washuta P.E., The Citadel; Patrick Bass, The Citadel

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

above the neutral response of 3.0, which indicates that students felt that thesemodules had a positive impact in both the short and long term. The highest ratings came from theimportance of developing an elevator pitch, while the lowest ratings, including the only ratingamong this group below the neutral response, involved participation in the business competition.The higher ratings associated with developing an elevator pitch could again be due to thestudents’ higher level of comfort with oral presentations. The lower ratings associated with thebusiness competition do not reflect the student self-assessment of learning outcomes, and theseratings seem to depend heavily on whether the students advanced past the initial paperwork-onlyround of the

Conference Session

ENT Division Technical Session: EM Across the Curriculum I

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

Kevin D. Dahm, Rowan University; Scott Duplicate Streiner, Rowan University; Cheryl A. Bodnar, Rowan University; Kaitlin Mallouk, Rowan University; Bruce Oestreich, Rowan University; Ted Howell, Rowan University; Jennifer Tole, Rowan University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

Paper ID #30141Integrating Entrepreneurial Mindset in a Multidisciplinary Course onEngineering Design and Technical CommunicationDr. Kevin D. Dahm, Rowan University Kevin Dahm is a Professor of Chemical Engineering at Rowan University. He earned his BS from Worces- ter Polytechnic Institute (92) and his PhD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (98). He has pub- lished two books, ”Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics” and ”Interpreting Diffuse Reflectance and Transmittance.” He has also published papers on effective use of simulation in engineer- ing, teaching design and engineering economics, and

Conference Session

ENT Division Technical Session: Assessment Tools and Practices

Collection

2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access

Authors

John K. Estell, Ohio Northern University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

sufficient justification. X d. Collects feedback and data from many customers and customer segments. X e. Recognize and explore knowledge gaps. XCuriosity f. Critically observes surroundings to recognize opportunity. g. View problems with an open mindset and explore opportunities with passion. 1. h. Be able to self-reflect and evaluate preconceived ideas, thoughts, and accepted solutions. X i. Explores multiple solution paths

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division Opening General Session 2

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Qu Jin, Stanford University; Shannon Katherine Gilmartin, Stanford University; Sheri D. Sheppard, Stanford University; Helen L. Chen, Stanford University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division Opening General Session 2

Collection

2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Jennifer Grimsley Michaeli P.E., Old Dominion University; Gene Hou, Old Dominion University; Xiaoxiao Hu, Old Dominion University; May Hou, Norfolk State University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

hierarchy, which is the collection ofall decision alternatives.The final step in the AHP is to establish the total global score. This is done by combining thenormalized local priority weights of the alternatives, sub-criteria and criteria levels throughsuccessive multiplication. That is, the weights at the lowest level are multiplied with respect toall successive upper levels in the hierarchy. The new composite weights are normalized; themagnitude indicates the relative preference of the decision alternative. The decision alternativethat receives the highest value reflects the optimal alternative.Every step in the AHP process can involve a group of decision makers. Each of the stakeholderscan select the objective, the decision criteria and the

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship Teaming and Collaboration

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Andrew L Gerhart, Lawrence Technological University; Donald D. Carpenter, Lawrence Technological University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

. Figure 1. A learning activity to emphasize the core competencies of creativity. For further information see Reference 7.The second day was dedicated to exploring innovative progress and visiting innovative sites asthe students toured the Henry Ford Museum, Greenfield Village, and the Ford Rouge Factorywhere F-150 trucks are assembled. While each of the three sites requires a full day or more toexplore, the students used self-guided itineraries focused on innovation and developed by TheHenry Ford to allow efficient exploration in the single day format. The itineraries guide studentsto key attractions and include questions and reflections. The Henry Ford Museum includes areasfocused on “Made in America – Manufacturing and

Conference Session

Leadership, Design, and Entrepreneurship

Collection

2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Noel E. Bormann P.E., Gonzaga University; Mara London, Gonzaga University; Spencer Joseph Fry; Andrew Douglas Matsumoto, Gonzaga University; Melanie Ruth Walter

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

, because of this mission, they face some distinctive challenges and any definition ought to reflect this”. “For social entrepreneurs, the social mission is explicit and central. This obviously affects how social entrepreneurs perceive and assess opportunities. Mission-related impact becomes the central criterion, not wealth creation. Wealth is just a means to an end for social entrepreneurs.” … “It is inherently difficult to measure social value creation. How much social value is created by reducing pollution in a given stream, by saving the spotted owl, or by providing companionship to the elderly? The calculations are not only hard but also contentious. Even when improvements can be measured

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship Courses and Outcomes II

Collection

2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

William D. Schindel, ICTT System Sciences; Samuel N. Peffers, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; James H. Hanson, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; Jameel Ahmed, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology; William A. Kline, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

challenge the status quo.Primary Traits: A passing submission for this criterion must: 1. Describe the situation or current mode of operation (status quo) and perceived constraints. 2. Present one or more questions that challenge the status quo. 3. Explain how each question is a challenge to the status quo.Potential Artifacts: reflective essay, blog, journal, presentationAdditional Information: 1. Common approaches to this type of questioning include asking “Why?”, “Why not?”, and “What if?” For example, “Why is program accreditation done every six years?” 2. It can be helpful to imagine an opposing situation or viewpoint. For example, “What if program accreditation was done by employers rather than agencies

Conference Session

Classes in Entrepreneurship

Collection

2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Daniel Raviv, Florida Atlantic University

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

compare to topics in same sections Using puzzles to solve math problems; Self-explanatory or useless tipsActivity: Explain what is wrong with speed limit signs:From the user’s point of view: What’s wrong with speed limit sign/driving/enforcement (forexample, we don’t feel “guilty” by driving above it). Suggest ideas to solve the problem.Students’ responses:Right: Max speed limit required by law Higher speed limits in Highways Safe way not to get a speeding ticket People can agree that the octagonal shape of a stop sign is an unmistakable symbol Reflective properties of signs and reflectors make it easier to drive during the nightWrong: People do not follow the speed limit Speed limit signs are

Conference Session

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation Division Technical Session 4

Collection

2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Authors

Kathryn Weed Jablokow, Pennsylvania State University; Neeraj Sonalkar, Stanford University; Ilya Avdeev, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Brian D. Thompson, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Mohamed M. Megahed, Pennsylvania State University; Pratik Subhash Pachpute, Pennsylvania State University,Great Valley

Tagged Divisions

Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation

style: Sufficiency of Originality, Efficiency, and Rule/GroupConformity. These sub-factors are also normally distributed within the following theoreticalranges: SO (13–65), E (7–35), and R/G (12–60) [26, 27]. Sufficiency of Originality (SO)highlights differences between individuals in their preferred ways of generating and choosingideas. The more adaptive tend to generate more highly detailed ideas that remain more closelyconnected to the original constraints of a problem, while more innovative individuals tend togenerate ideas that challenge the problem definition and constraints. Efficiency (E) reflects anindividual’s preferred methods for managing and organizing ideas as they solve problems. Themore adaptive prefer to define problems and