Paper ID #30266Analyzing Innovative Behavior Outcomes of Early-Career EngineeringGraduatesMr. Simon Jakob Barth, Stanford University Simon has a background in condensed matter physics with a finished bachelor and master’s degree at the Technical University of Munich (TUM). In addition, he holds a second master’s degree in management. During his studies, he gained industry experience at different technology and consulting companies be- fore he founded his own business in 2016, an Augmented and Virtual Reality tech consultancy named PrismAR. At the Designing Education Lab, Simon researched on innovative behavior of
-Corps site entrepreneurial leads and their career goalsAs indicated above, two scholars with an innovation and entrepreneurship major backgroundfrom Clarkson University in New York was recruited to work with the REU scholars. One of thestudents had a business and entrepreneurship background, while the second student had achemical engineering and entrepreneurship background. Clarkson University in NY with aninnovation and entrepreneurship major was approached to recruit these students, culminating in aSkype interview with those students. Based on this interview, we were convinced that thesestudents were focused on commercializing innovations in the field of materials scienceengineering. The students indicated that this internship would allow
”Intellectual Property Law for Engineers and Scientists,” IEEE and John Wiley & Sons, Publishers (2004) c American Society for Engineering Education, 2020 An Online Course on Intellectual Property for Undergraduates and Graduate Engineers and ScientistsIntroduction It can be said with a very high degree of confidence that all of the engineers and scientistsin our technology University classrooms at some point in their professional careers, will comeinto direct contact with the Intellectual Property Laws of this or other countries, and these lawswill have an impact on their extant projects. Whether using these Intellectual Property Laws toobtain exclusive rights covering their
questions for this project: 1. How consistent are the three EM frameworks, measured through the similarity of results when used to analyze EM engineering courses? 2. How clear are the three EM frameworks, measured by challenges identified when attempting to utilize ambiguous or overly-specific EM learning objectives when measuring the EM content of courses?To answer these questions, three curricula were identified: first-year engineering laboratorycoursework, a third-year technical project designed with EM in mind, and a multidisciplinarysenior capstone course. These courses were chosen to span the entire career of an engineeringstudent, from first-year to senior capstone, to give a more complete dataset. Each curriculumthen
solutions that generate and strengthen career plans of students, as well as improve retention, graduation rates, and speed to graduation. He is recognized within education circles as standing at the vanguard of the progressive technological movement. He has taught students, trained corporate salespeople and career coaches, and advised entrepreneurs. His energy, passion, positivity, and attention to detail have served him well in bringing out the best in others.Dr. Kishore Pochiraju, Stevens Institute of Technology (School of Engineering and Science) Kishore Pochiraju is the Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and a Professor in the Mechanical Engineering department at Stevens Institute of Technology. He recently
can be metvia coursework, Gerhart advocates for offering summer experiences for university students as analternative to coursework [7]. Specifically, offering summer experiences alleviates the need forstudents to take additional coursework outside of degree requirements that may be challenging tofit into student schedules already filled with academic rigor. Many college students alreadyparticipate in Research Experience for Undergraduates (REUs) or other undergraduate researchopportunities, or obtain an internship with a company during their summer semesters. Thesesummer opportunities develop not only valuable skill sets for academic and career development,but may also help students achieve the various GCSP competencies.Examples of existing
a comprehensive set of measuresdesigned to quantify student participants’ individual differences in innovative capacity andbehavior. Drawing from seminal works on creativity and contemporary innovation inventories, theintent of the survey is to capture pre- and post-intervention levels of student innovation. In concertwith quantitative measures that have demonstrated good validity and reliability, the surveyincludes qualitative measures aimed at understanding students’ idiosyncratic conceptualization ofinnovation, and its relationship to their career aspirations.The survey was administered to undergraduate students. Three potential innovation styles (as anoutcome, a process, and a mindset) are tested before and after program intervention
or develop these attitudes.This discussion led to identification and clustering of all the concepts under 24 uniquecategories that define EM.Step 4: Knowledge Gap IdentificationAs noted in the work by Zappe, educators can be influenced by their own career experienceand belief about entrepreneurship when seeking to define EM [11]. The researchers whoconducted the previous steps represent different disciplinary and career backgrounds. A thirdresearcher, with a different disciplinary background, reviewed existing literature thatdescribed EM and identified gaps in the categories and concept lists. These new conceptswere placed under a relevant category from Step 3. The first two columns in Table 3 show theconcepts considered “behaviors” after
integratetechnical and professional skills and knowledge in their development as an engineer [1]”. Inaddition, engineering students’ involvement in activities outside of the classroom, such asstudent competition teams, contributes to their achievement of numerous other outcomes;according to Simmons, et al, engagement with these activities enhances students’ “career andprofessional development, communication and leadership development, intellectualdevelopment, personal and social development, academic and social engagement, interculturalcompetence, satisfaction with college experiences, and college belonging and persistence inmajor and college [2]”. Working on a competition team, therefore, contributes to thedevelopment of students’ design and build skills
within the Center for entrepreneurship at California State University, Chico. Mr. Rahn has extensive industry back- ground with software and consulting startups and specialized in new product and market development. Following his successful industry career Mr. Rahn transitioned to teaching strategy and entrepreneurship at Chico State. Over the past 16 years Mr. Rahn has developed the e-Incubator at Chico State, as well as created a course called Web-based entrepreneurship which focuses on helping students launch the on- line portion of their businesses using the Lean Startup approach. In 2016 he published ”e-Business for Entrepreneurs,” an online course for entrepreneurs building e-businesses
, pp. 128-134,2008.[30] H. Mo, “The Path Chart of Entrepreneurial Intention in the Context of Chinese Culture--Based on Theory of Planned Behavior,” Sci. Res. Manag., vol. ED-30, pp. 128-135, Nov. 2009.[31] F. Liñán, Y. Chen, “Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions,” Entre. Theor. & Prac., vol. ED-33, pp. 593-617, May. 2009.[32] L. Kolvereid, “Organisational Employ Versus Self Employment: Reasons for Career Choice Intentions,” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, vol. ED-20, pp. 23-31, May. 1996.[33] N. Duval-Couetil, T. Reed-Rhoads, S. Haghighi, “The Engineering Entrepreneurship Survey: An Assessment Instrument to Examine Engineering Student
even prepared patent applications. Two groups within this cohort are poised toform a company around their project, as evidenced by their participation in businesspitch/incubator events as well as their efforts to protect intellectual property. Students in priorterms have launched a company in this fashion [13], [14]. Finally, as another option for futureinvolvement, students have been exposed to resources from Techstars Startup Weekend.Students in this course are being equipped for future success in academic or industry careers asthey learn to brainstorm, plan, and execute a team project.References[1] M. Vansteenkiste, W. Lens, and E. L. Deci, “Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the
theentrepreneurial journey to designing programs that allow students to have founder experiencesand launch their own business ventures. The intention of these programs is for engineeringstudents to gain a skillset and orientation towards being more innovative and entrepreneurial intheir careers once they leave the university, whether they choose to try to immediately start acompany or not.Many of the activities that are designed into entrepreneurship programs, however, result instudents experiencing varying degrees of failure with the most extreme case being student-launched ventures that fail. While entrepreneurship programs typically talk about embracingfailure and learning to fail fast, it’s unclear what impact these failure experiences have
and the role of leadership and culture in process improvement. His research is supported by the NSF and industry and has received numerous national and international awards. He is an elected Fellow of the American Society for Engi- neering Management and serves as an Associate Editor for the Engineering Management Journal . Prior to his academic career, Schell spent 14 years in industry where he held leadership positions focused on process improvement and organizational development.Dr. Agnieszka Kwapisz, Montana State UniversityKregg Aytes, Montana State UniversityDr. Scott E Bryant, Montana State University Dr. Scott Bryant currently serves as a Professor of Management at Montana State University. He received his
Technological University S. Henson’s career includes working as a chemist, finishing engineer, and materials scientist. In this re- spect, her expertise focused on material analysis and selection. After obtaining her Masters in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), she went on to teach GIS to civil engineering students at Lawrence Tech- nological University. After training in entrepreneurial engineering, she began teaching Fundamentals of Engineering Design Projects. She also acted as the civil engineering capstone coordinator. She is now a project engineer working in the Entrepreneurial Engineering Design Curriculum.Matthew L. Cole, Lawrence Technological University Dr. Matthew Cole is a tenured Assistant Professor in the
is the main area of her expertise, which has enabled her a) to investigate growth trajectories of motivation and career choices; b) to identify opportunity gaps within underserved groups; and c) to evaluate and improve educational interventions in STEM. One of her original studies validating a motivation scale for engineering students was recently published in the Journal of Engineering Education. With the exper- tise in quantitative research methodology, she is engaged in collaborative research with entrepreneurship education and other interdisciplinary programs.Dr. Nathalie Duval-Couetil, Purdue University at West Lafayette Nathalie Duval-Couetil is the Director of the Certificate in Entrepreneurship and Innovation
make the work more fun and dealt more like a personal success once it was done • I liked the hands on components that I took advantage of during the module • We were able to do some motion analysis capture • I liked having 2 tries for the elevator pitch, the liked the entrepreneurial aspects • I think the human performance was also a great experience and carrying out a research study • The idea of this module is fantastic, I like the structure concepts of making engineers more business, like learnt as a senior I think it is a bit late. The module would be more effective if we did this throughout my academic career in college • I like that the module was hands on and more or less allowed us to
American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. 2018: Salt Lake City, UT.14. Moore, R.A., S.H. Newton, and A. Baskett, The InVenture Challenge: Inspiring STEM Learning through Invention and Entrepreneurship. International Journal of Engineering Education, 2017. 33(1(B)): p. 361-370.15. Fernet, C., et al., The work tasks motivation scale for teachers (WTMST). Journal of Career assessment, 2008. 16(2): p. 256-279.16. Yoon Yoon, S., M.G. Evans, and J. Strobel, Validation of the Teaching Engineering Self‐ Efficacy Scale for K‐12 Teachers: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of Engineering Education, 2014. 103(3): p. 463-485.
category are alternative businessmodels, economies of disadvantaged groups or areas and providing certain services orproducts for less. For example, one of the student reports mentioned business opportunitiesand the need of international standards to pursue them: “The IoT plays a key role in sustainable cities and communities. Successful and safe IoT technology will create more career and business opportunities. Our research shows that the most effective, and maybe also only global, solution for data security issues are laws, standards and contracts.” (group E, first report)All student groups were concerned about the economy in some manner in the initial reports.Some took it from a global point of view, where the