world, connections from sources to gain insight and assess risk, andcreating value in a prototype through unexpected opportunities [2].The agriculture sector is a highly technical field that offers many open-ended problems forstudents to explore. The farming industry has gone away from manual labor and embracedtechnology, oftentimes being a leader [3]. John Deere was an early adopter of precisionagriculture by implementing GPS on tractors in the mid-1990’s [4]. Recently, John Deereannounced a sprayer that acts as an inkjet printer for precision spraying of plants [5]. Automationcan monitor water usage and ensure plants are receiving the correct amount of water [6]. Dronesalso have many uses in the agriculture sector from mechanical to
. Ed., Apr. 2006.4. Ohland, M.W., Fillman, S.A., Zhang, G., and Miller, T.K., “NC State’s Engineering Entrepreneurs Program in theContext of US Entrepreneurship Programs,” Education that Works: The NCIIA 8th Annual Meeting, March 18-20,2004.5. High, K., and Damron, R. "Are Freshman Engineering Students Able to Think and Write Critically?" ASEE PaperAC 2007-1744.6. Ohland, M.W. "The Effect of an Entrepreneurship Program on GPA and Retention," Journal of EngineeringEducation, Oct 2004.7. Georgi, G., Doucette, D., and Folan, L. "Entrepreneurship in Freshman Engineering," Proc. 2002ASEE/SEFI/TUB Colloquium, 2002.8. Wang, E., and Kleppe, J. "Teaching Invention, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship in Engineering," J. Engr. Ed.,Oct. 2001.9. Bilen, S
the authors is both a key faculty memberand one of the CATI associates, actively bridging between the two components of the program.In the first course, students are introduced to the concepts of creativity and ideation, and one or Page 14.739.4more of the CATI patents are used as the basis for in-class and team-based exercises. Studentsideate the patent(s) and identify potential products and services. It is particularly useful to usepatents that are “platform” in nature; that is, that are broadly applicable, as opposed to aparticular method of use or narrow area of applicability. When market research and marketingplans are covered, students
four students each were instructed to brainstorm several business opportunitiesrelevant to the biomechanics field. The proposed ideas could provide either a product or service.Teams were to identify potential customers for their ideas. Students then assessed the merits andpotential impact (to the customer(s) and society at large) of their initial ideas. Over the course ofseveral weeks, the teams continued to refine their concepts by performing market analysis toconsider resources needed (costs, personnel, facilities, manufacturing, distribution, etc.),intellectual property protections, and an understanding of their competition. This iterativeprocess continued for a couple weeks offline until the teams selected their preferred businessidea.At
corresponding means of assessment. We plan to submit a full paper in a year with more details on our progress towards these outcomes. Acknowledgments This work was made possible in part by a Faculty Grant from VentureWell to the authors. The authors would also like to acknowledge the rest of the senior design teaching team (AP, BT, RR, JG) and our college’s administration for the ongoing support. References[1] A. J. Dutson, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby, and C. D. Sorensen, “A Review of Literature on Teaching Engineering Design Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 17–28, Jan. 1997.[2] “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2019 – 2020 | ABET.” [Online]. Available
Pracetice: Part 1 ‐ The Entrepreneurial Mindset. Ohland, M. W., Sheppard, S. D., Lichtenstein, G., Eris, O., Chachra, D., & Layton, R. A. (2008). Persistence, Engagement, and Migration in Engineering Programs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 259‐ 278. Reid, K., & Ferguson, D. (2011). Enhancing the Entrepreneurial Mindset of Freshman Engineers. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. Ricco, G., Silliman, S., & Girtz, S. (2017). Exploring Engineering Mindset. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education. Appendix 1 – Combined Curiosity and Creativity Survey QuestionsCuriosity_1 I spend a great deal of time researching areas that I wish
pedagogical and personal spheres for greater achievement of learning objectives.In practice, the typology of learning communities is quite varied. The Washington Center’sLearning Communities Directory is continually being updated and today contains a catalog of atleast 300 learning community programs1. There are also ample resources for exploring thehistory of learning communities and the creation of new ones. For example, N. S. Shapiro et al.provides a practical guide to creating learning communities, with a focus on puttingadministrative processes in place2. For a more comprehensive treatment of the subject, a recentbook by O. T. Lenning et al. has several informative sections, particularly on achieving studentsuccess and assessment of learning
in meeting the challenges associated with preparing students to succeed in aglobal economy1. In other words, our current education practices lack instruction on how toincorporate the customers’ needs into a technical solution. To accomplish this and ensure theU.S.’s economic competitiveness, known effective pedagogies must be integrated with anentrepreneurial mindset. This mindset will take engineering education beyond providing studentsjust a technical background, but will develop innovative thinkers who consider the value to thecustomer in their solutions. Page 26.69.2Although many colleges offer courses focusing on innovation and
credit hours.” Among these experiences, the author suggestedsupporting a student organization, participation in conferences, and networking activities withstudents at other schools. In summary, this literature review demonstrates that empirical studies of entrepreneurshipprograms often overlook socio-demographic characteristics and simplify the conceptualization ofco-curricular experiences, suggesting a vague alignment with the curriculum.Conceptual Framework In an effort to work towards a more structured approach to studying the complexities ofengineering entrepreneurship education and its impact on students in higher education, we havechosen to position this analysis in the context of Lattuca et al.’s (2014)30 use of the Terenzini
NSF Pathways to Innovation Faculty Fellow. When not working Joe enjoys improvisational dance and music, running trail marathons, backpacking, brewing Belgian beers and most of all enjoying time with his children and wife. Page 26.287.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2015 Blending Entrepreneurship and Design in an Immersive Environment 1 2 Bryan Boulanger and Joseph Tranquillo1 Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio Northern University, 525 S. Main St, Ada, OH 45810
heuristics, knowledge, and action. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(1), 167-192. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00285.x2. Huggins, R., Jounes, M. & Upton, S. (2008). Universities as drivers of knowledge-based regional development: a triple helix analysis of Wales. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(1): 24-47.3. Taatila, V.P. (2010). Learning entrepreneurship in higher education. Education + Training, 52(1), 48 – 61. doi: 10.1108/004009110110176724. Tenenbaum, G., Naidu, S., Jegede, O., & Austin, J. (2001). Constructivist pedagogy in conventional on-campus and distance learning practice: an exploratory investigation. Learning and Instruction, 1(2): 87-111
three distinct but highly correlated areas of innovative design, entrepreneurship, and modeling. She is an Associate Editor for the AEE Journal.Ms. Allison Michelle RobinsonNur zge zaltin, University of Pittsburgh Nur zge zaltin is a Ph.d. candidate in the Industrial Engineering Department at the University of Pitts- burgh. She received her B.S. in industrial engineering at Bosphorus University in Turkey and her master;s degree in industrial engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, respectively. Her research interest involves improving innovation through modeling the design process.Dr. Larry J. Shuman, University of Pittsburgh Larry J. Shuman is Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and professor of industrial
. Mustar, P.,‖ Technology Management Education: Innovation and Entrepreneurship at MINES ParisTech, Page 22.633.6 a Leading French Engineering School‖, The Academy of Management Learning and Education (AMLE), 8:3, 2009, pp418—4255. Luryi, S. and Tang, W. and Lifshitz, N. and Wolf, G. and Doboli, S. and Betz, J.A. and Maritato, P. and Shamash, Y.,‖ Entrepreneurship in engineering education‖, Frontiers In Education Conference-Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, 2007. FIE'07. 37th Annual‖ IEEE, 2008.6. Chang, J.C. and Sung, H.Y.,‖Planning and implementation
Multi-level Multi-dimensional Perspective with Mental ModelsAbstractEntrepreneurship education programs typically include a large range of student outcomesincluding knowledge, skills, and attitudes as well as outcomes that go beyond the classroom.Because of the extent of inclusions and the broad range of effects, assessing the effectiveness ofentrepreneurship education programs is frequently challenged. Based upon Block and Stumpf[1]’s idea of “hierarchy of criteria” for evaluation, the main purpose of this research is to providea multi-level multi-dimensional perspective that systematically investigates factors related to thesuccess of entrepreneurship education programs. Such programs, in turn, can stimulate and bringsuccess to new
technology commercialization, including the first technology licenses, faculty start-ups, student patent filings, student start-ups, on campus incubation of start-ups and partner companies, and a Commercialization Council that bridges the gap between university research and the broader technology commercialization community in San Antonio. Mr. Hallam was a recipient of the MIT Course 16 Sixteen award, the SABJ 40 under 40 award, the Richard S. Howe Undergraduate Teaching Excellence award, and currently holds the Jacobson Distinguished Professorship in Innovation and Entrepreneurship at UTSA.Prof. Dorie Jewel GilbertProf. Olivier Wenker MD, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center Dr. Wenker is a Professor of
Impact on Student Success in Engineering and Engineering Technology Education,” in Proceedings, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 2017, Columbus, OH.[2] Kennedy, E. D., McMahon, S. R., and D. Reis, “Independence in the Making: Using Makerspaces Experiences to Build Foundational Entrepreneurial Competencies,” Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogies, 0(0) pp 1-18. 2020.[3] “NAE Grand Challenge Scholars Program”, National Academy of Engineers. Accessed Jan. 27th, 2020. [Online] Available: http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/GrandChallengeScholarsProgram.aspx[4] “What Is KEEN,” Accessed Mar. 9th, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://engineeringunleashed.com/what-is-keen[5] J. B. Hylton, D. Mikesell, J.-D. Yoder, and H
engagement with programs/students Stakeholder Group -‐ Facilitate engagement of leaders from across campus and the region Competition Support -‐ Deliberate support for student teams in business plan and pitch competitions and engagement with strategic partners, funders, and others. Cross-‐Campus and Regional Collaboration -‐ Active dialogue to facilitate collaboration and identification and engagement of regional partners Center Expansion (2016 -‐> ) Dedicated Personnel – Full time center leadership Mentor(s)-‐in-‐Residence – On-‐campus practitioners actively working with students Curricular Integration – Cohesive connections across multiple existing
eventually evolves. For example, we are notusing Roman numerals, we are not stuck with the first written language of cuneiform based onsymbolic forms, of quality of 70 years ago based on the sorting of parts or the first invention ofan internal combustion engine in the 1600’s based on the use of gunpowder. All systems ofvalue evolve and TRIZ is no different and it is important for both academics and professionals tocommit to improving on the foundation work of Genrich Altshuller.In 1946, a Russian Navy Patent Office agent, Genrich Altshuller, realized that there was Page 14.114.6information hidden inside patents (and the history of technology) and
analyzing that which is observable but intangible, obvious but oftenineffable. Surely collaborative groups of humans are among the most complex systems ever to bestudied, and to extract knowable and repeatable results from the infinite subtleties of their interactionsis no small task. Ultimately, we should hope to establish Intergy as that “thing” that is neitherinspiration, creativity nor communication, but is the foundation for all of them.REFERENCES Page 14.1172.13[14] Baum, J., Locke, E. & Kirkpatrick, S. 1998. A longitudinal study of the relation of vision and vision communication to venture growth in entrepreneurial firms
, pp. 38-XXXBröchler, S., Simonis, G., & Sundermann, K. (Eds.). (1999). Handbuch Technikfolgenabschätzung (Vol. 1). edition sigma, Berlin.Carson, R. (1962). Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Clough, G. (chair). (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of Engineering in the New Century, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC: National Press.Clough, G. (chair). (2005). Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting Engineering Education to the New Century. National Academy of engineering. Washington, DC: National Press.Clough, G. (2006). Reforming engineering education, The Bridge.Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. St. Martin. New York.Die Bundesregierung (2016): Freier Handel gut für alle. 10
, S.D. (2017). Designing a Longitudinal Study of EngineeringStudents’ Innovation and Engineering Interests and Plans: The Engineering Majors SurveyProject. EMS 1.0 and 2.0 Technical Report. Stanford, CA: Stanford University DesigningEducation Lab.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994). Toward a Unifying Social Cognitive Theoryof Career and Academic Interest, Choice and Performance. Journal of Vocational Behavior,45, 79–122.Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social Cognitive Career Theory. In D. &. A.Brown (Ed.), Career Choice and Development (4th ed., pp. 255-311). Hoboken, NJ: JohnWiley & Sons.Lent, R. W., & Brown, S.D. (2006). On Conceptualizing and Assessing Social CognitiveConstructs in Career
] H. Zukin and M. Szeltner, Talent Report: What Workers Want in 2012, Rutgers University,New Brunswick, NJ: John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development, 2012.[2] PASCO Product Catalog, “Materials Stress-Strain Experiment -- EX-5515A,” PASCOScientific, Inc. [Online]. Available: www.pasco.com/prodCatalog/EX/EX-5515_materials-stress-strain-experiment/index.cfm. [Accessed November 14, 2017].[3] M. J. Traum, E. Selvi, S. A. Aponte, C.-D. R. Bayran, D. J. Diaz Sanchez, K. J. Lyles, D. D.Norwood, J. R. Pruitt, and L. J. Scroggins, “Developing Engineering Education Products viaProject Ownership Oriented Learning in an Undergraduate Mechanics of Materials Course,”Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE) Southeastern
individuals’qualities that add to a team’s assets in a social interaction, may be crucial at the initial stage ofteam creativity in determining the richness and quality of ideas available to the team.Teamology approachThe Teamology approach is used to help us form effective teams. Rather than take a subjectiveapproach to forming teams, Teamology uses a student’s personality type scores to classify theirdominant cognitive mode(s), or dominant way of thinking. The personality type scores are drawnfrom a Myers-Briggs-like test that assesses the four areas below:• How outwardly or inwardly focused a student is - Extraverted versus Introverted. • How a student takes in information – Sensing versus Intuition. • How a student makes decisions – Thinking versus
, profession-based, industry andsociety level abstract learning objectives is surprisingly short. It is as close as your closeststudent. SBL is focusing on student’s knowledge, skills and self-awareness capabilitiesthrough its methodology. It is not a substitute for engineer´s disciplinary knowledge. It ispart of “software” that runs the engineering skills through making the student morecapable in creating and sharing her passion, vision and thoughts in a group of people.Though not listed directly in the ABET criteria1, 16 document we believe that thesequalities are part of the key skill set in creating sustainable engineering, coming up withnew ventures, commitment to life long learning, and simply fostering ethical andcommitted individuals to the
Generation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 136(5), 051009. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.40269516. Svihla, V., Petrosino, A. J., & Diller, K. R. (2012). Learning to Design: Authenticity, Negotiation, and Innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(4), 782.7. Fila, N. D., Purzer, Ş., & Fernandez, T. M. (Under review). How engineering students characterize their innovative design experiences.8. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of Higher Psychological Processes. (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scrbner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.9. Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.10. Amabile, T. M
hoc, abductive analysis represents a dialectic “conversation” between dataand theory. Abductive analysis follows an iterative cycle of hypothesis generation that couldexplain unexpected findings and then exploration of potential hypotheses within the data, whichwill often result in new unexpected findings and refinement of hypotheses. Abductive analysis is“complete” once a new theory is generated that can explain the unexpected finding(s) and issupported by the data.Thus, in this paper, we attempt to address the following research question through abductiveanalysis: What theoretical formulation can help explain why female engineering students were more likely to experience innovation in more comprehensive ways than male
4.94 Founders and Management Team Factors - Founder(s) commitment to startup 4.89 Relationship Factors - Integrity 4.89 Relationship Factors - Coachability 4.82 Founders and Management Team Factors - Perseverance 4.76 Relationship Factors - Character 4.72 Intellectual Property Factors - Competitive Advantage 4.71 Relationship Factors - Passion 4.67 Competitive Factors - Understanding of Competitive Landscape 4.67 Exit Factors - Potential for
benefits to the Small-to-MediumEnterprise (SME) sector, and of particular interest in this study, micro-manufacturers inregional settings.The statistics captured on innovation often provide a mixed view on the greater benefitsin the form of increased productivity and higher value for the goods and services weproduce. Though the value of statistical information and analysis is beneficial, it doesnot provide an in-depth view of the effects and benefits on small businesses, theirowner(s) and the resultant innovation outcomes. Specifically, most research undertakenin evaluating the outcomes of innovation policy often do no more than broad and insome cases, industry specific statistical analyses, surveys and short interviews. Thequestion may be posed
emphasized by these programs and the value proposition they communicate tostudents. More research is necessary to refine program-level frameworks for teaching innovation,program and course-level course competencies, and the manner in which teaching innovation canbe applied to different disciplines. Page 25.1259.14References1 "A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs", Washington, DC, 2009.2 Baregheh, A., J. Rowley, and S. Sambrook," Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation", Management Decision Vol. 47, No. 8, 2009, pp. 1323-1339.3 Baily, M., K. Dynan, and D. Elliott, "The
Knowledge for the 21 st Century: Preparing the Civil Engineer for the Future. ASCE: 2nd edition. 2. ASME. (2010). Creating the Future of Mechanical Engineering Education: Phase 1 Report. ASME Center for Education Task Force: December 15. 3. Besterfield-Sacre M., Ozaltin N. O., Shartrand A., Shuman L. J. (2011). Understanding the technical entrepreneurship landscape in engineering education. Annual Conference and Exposition of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). 4. Brush, C. (2013). Does Entrepreneurship Education Matter? Forbes. June 24, 2013. 5. Byers, T., Seelig, T., Sheppard, S., and Weilerstein, P. (2013). Entrepreneurship: Its Role in Engineering Education. The Bridge on Undergraduate