Paper ID #24452Work-in-Progress – Entrepreneurial Mindset in First-Year Engineering CoursesMs. Mary Fraley, Michigan Technological University Mary Fraley is a Sr. Lecturer in the Department of Engineering Fundamentals at Michigan Technological University. Her research interests include online/blended learning methods, entrepreneurial mindset, and applying LEAN to the process of teaching and learning.Ms. Mary Raber, Michigan Technological University Mary Raber currently serves as Assistant Dean for Academic Programs for the Pavlis Honors College at Michigan Technological University. She also serves as co-Director of the
Paper ID #21777Investigating the Entrepreneurial Mindset of Engineering and Computer Sci-ence StudentsDr. Cheryl Q. Li, University of New Haven Cheryl Qing Li joined University of New Haven in the fall of 2011, where she is Associate Professor of the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department. Li earned her first Ph.D. in mechanical engineer- ing from National University of Singapore in 1997. She served as Assistant Professor and subsequently Associate Professor in mechatronics engineering at University of Adelaide, Australia, and Nanyang Tech- nological University, Singapore, respectively. In 2006, she resigned from
Paper ID #22395Influence of an Entrepreneurial Mindset on P-12 Students’ Problem Framing(Work-in-Progress)Eunhye Kim, Purdue Polytechnic Institute Eunhye Kim is a Ph.D student in Technology Leadership and Innovation at Purdue University, West Lafayette, with a focus on engineering and technology education. Her research interests lie in engineering design thinking, innovation and entrepreneurship education in engineering, and engineering professional skills. She earned a B.S. in Electronics Engineering and an MBA in South Korea.Dr. Greg J Strimel, Purdue Polytechnic Institute Dr. Greg J. Strimel is an assistant professor of
the Global Freshman Academy. Her Ph.D. research focuses on multi-scale multiphase modeling and numerical analysis of coupled large viscoelastic deformation and fluid transport in swelling porous materials, but she is currently interested in various topics in the field of engineering education, such as innovative teaching pedagogies for increased retention and student moti- vation; innovations in non-traditional delivery methods, incorporation of the Entrepreneurial Mindset in the engineering curriculum and its impact.Mr. Ian Derk, Arizona State University Mr. Ian Derk is an instructor in the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts and PhD student in com- munication at the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication
: Implications of pedagogical approach for students’ mindsetAbstractStudent curiosity compels learners to go beyond what is presented in the classroom, to connectwhat they have discovered with other concepts, and to finally create new items and knowledge tohelp address the world’s problems. Encouraging this entrepreneurial mindset is a goal within anumber of courses at our institution. While not every learner arrives in our classrooms innatelycurious about the course topic, by using alternative instructional approaches, perhaps curiositymight be fostered more broadly.The goal of this study is to explore the hypothesis that courses that include open-ended, real-world problems will foster growth of the entrepreneurial mindset
entrepreneurs. Towards that, various engineering colleges have beenestablishing Entrepreneurial Development Centers (EDC). The centers (also referred to asentrepreneurial education training programs) focus on developing entrepreneurial capabilitiesand mindset (associated socio-emotional skills and entrepreneurship awareness) and raisingsuccessful enterprises[5]. We decided to use the design thinking approach, which is elaboratedby Buchanan[6] as addressing intractable human concerns through design, and started byunderstanding requirements of prospective student entrepreneurs to establish a more useful EDC.The paper explains the approach that consisted of learning from people, finding patterns, andarriving at design principles for design of the proposed
possess an ‘entrepreneurial mindset’. Considering the significant financial and time investments involved in the creation ofentrepreneurship programs, institutional funding competitions, and accelerator programs, it isnotable that there are no in-depth, qualitative studies that explore the entrepreneurshipexperiences students have because of these programs. In general, there is very little research onthe personal impacts of these experiences including how they can affect an engineering student’sattitudes, behaviors, career goals, or personal competence (Duval-Coetil, Reed-Rhoads, &Haghighi, 2011). There is also no consensus on what developing an ‘entrepreneurial mindset’means. This study builds off current literature in addressing these
with community service in such a waythat the service performed is integral to achieving the academic goals of a course. Servicelearning projects are well documented within higher education, including within engineering viaestablished programs as EPICS [2, 3] and Engineers Without Borders [4, 5], and areimplemented with the goal of developing a positive mindset toward service learning. Similarly,the concept of incorporating the entrepreneurial mindset [6, 7] into engineering education hasresulted in project-based service learning experiences. For example, students enrolled in a courseat Villanova are first given the cultural context of a developing country and then live in one ofthat country’s rural communities during spring break [8]. The
how one might impact the world in the future.Entrepreneurship and sustainability often seem to be at odds with one another. Asimplistic definition would be that entrepreneurship focuses more on short-term value(often localized to particular stakeholders), while sustainability is focused on long-termvalue (often regional or global) (Tranquillo, 2017). Both, however, are oriented towardthe future and there are in fact many marriages between the two. Programs such as socialentrepreneurship in engineering schools and sustainable finance programs inside ofbusiness schools have grown in popularity. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial mindset,although not well defined (Zappe, 2013), is focused on developing the habits, behaviorsand attitudes of an
diverse backgrounds, knowledge andexperiences. Using a Social Networks Perspective to analyze data from student and advisorinterviews, researchers observed strong homophily and transitivity effects which create aculturally and demographically homogeneous environment and are directly linked to the missedlearning opportunities. The authors present recommendations for mediating or preventing theseeffects through formalized education and mentoring.In their study on pathways to entrepreneurial education, Celis and Huang-Saad [7] explored therelationships between student characteristics and entrepreneurship education programmaticchoices in a Midwest research institution. The entrepreneurial activities included both co-curricular (start-up treks and a
-directed learning, allowing participants to create meaning for themselves in what they do [29],[30]. It is not enough to simply have activities where participants follow step-by-step directions.Participants must be able to experience problems they could encounter as engineers and theymust be able to problem-solve and create their own meaningful experiences. One thing that couldbe incorporated in activities is the entrepreneurial mindset, a term often used by KernEngineering Entrepreneurial Network (KEEN). This mindset is meant to inspire progress andlearning in engineering with the three cornerstones being curiosity, connection, and value. KEENoften emphasizes the importance of being curious about innovative solutions in the changingworld
generally had one eye on their summerprojects and the other on their classrooms and computer clubs at school. This thinking reflectspositively on the program. Teachers’ descriptions of how they would use, for example,programming, soldering, 3D printing, robotic movements were all explained in ways that made itclear that they were poised to take their students from “reading about” to doing science, and fromclassrooms to labs and computer clubs.Business mindset: Teachers reported that the business and entrepreneurial activities provided animportant new dimension to their learning and teaching. They felt strongly that these ideas andexperiences would add a practical dimension that would motivate their students. Teachers reportedthat they can now
have an element of choice in whichtopics went forward, it would broaden the base of possible creative ideas, increase studententhusiasm for the class, and deepen their level of commitment to their specific project. Thisapproach is also consistent with Florida Tech’s participation in the Kern EntrepreneurialEngineering Network (KEEN), which seeks to develop an entrepreneurial mindset in students[2].In the aerospace capstone program, some topics are predefined by industry or research sponsors,but many can be defined by the instructor. In previous years, some effort was made to obtainstudent input, but approaches varied with the instructor and minimal class time was used toexplore options. With the new approach, the instructor defined boundaries
’ Development of More Comprehensive Ways of Experiencing InnovationIntroductionRecent years have seen an increased emphasis placed on innovation among engineering students.This is evident in the variety of courses, workshops, programs, and communities that currentlysupport innovation and innovation learning1–4. Likewise, there is a growing volume of researchdedicated to understanding the contexts, conditions, and experiences that promote innovativeoutcomes, knowledge, skills, and mindsets among engineering students5–9. Collectively, theseinvestigations and efforts paint a complex and diverse landscape of engineering innovation andstudent learning. Within this landscape, innovation can take many forms, arise from differentconditions, and
development of design skills.Participation in academic makerspaces has been studied in a variety of contexts. For example,Wilczynski [2] observed makerspaces in order to understand the factors leading to successfulspaces and found that makerspaces require clear mission, proper staffing, openness, availabletraining, maker mindset, and accessibility. Other studies have identified the staff-user ratio and thefloor space-user ratio as factors for success [6] as well as sustainable faculty leadership,management, and mentorship as critical elements for nurturing student values and co-ownership[7].There remains, however, a need to understand how participation in makerspaces impacts studentdevelopment as engineers. Are these open, hands-on making
as well as various courses in Mechanical Engineering, primarily in the mechanics area. His pedagogical research areas include standards-based assessment and curriculum design, the later currently focused on incorporating entrepreneurial thinking into the engineering curriculum.Mr. Matthew Walker, Ohio Northern University Matthew Walker is a sophomore Computer Engineering student at Ohio Northern University. He is also minoring in Applied Mathematics. He is the President of the student chapter of the American Society for Engineering Education and has a passion for teaching. His previous classroom experiences include a year of being in the education college and working in the field with high school math classes that
Underrepresented Students in School-Based Clubs,” Journal of STEM Education, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 31–36, 2016.[5] M. De Hoyos-Ruperto, C. Pomales-García, A. Padovani, O.M. Suárez, “An Entrepreneurship Education Co-Curricular Program to Stimulate Entrepreneurial Mindset in Engineering Students,” 2016 MRS Advances, vol. 2, no. 31-32, pp. 1673-1679, 2017. doi:10.1557/adv.2017.109
found in France, the U.S. educational system clearly drawssignificantly on entrepreneurial energies, going back well before the present neoliberal era. Onthe other hand, Cold War science policy has also contributed to the diversity of U.S. academicinstitutions (Geiger 1993, 2015). While this diversity has allowed the U.S. educational system tobe highly productive in generating a highly versatile and skilled workforce as well as newknowledge, this can also frustrate efforts to craft uniform visions and standards withinengineering education. Even when new standards are established and enforced, the entrenchedpatterns of institutional diversity will often harbor discontent with the status quo, leading tofurther rounds of reform.The background
College of Civic Life and the Center for Engineering Education and Outreach at Tufts. His current engineering education research interests focus on community engagement, service-based projects and examining whether an entrepreneurial mindset can be used to further engineering education innovations. He also does research on the development of reuse strategies for waste materials.Dr. Nathan E. Canney, CYS Structural Engineers Inc. Dr. Canney conducts research focused on engineering education, specifically the development of social responsibility in engineering students. Other areas of interest include ethics, service learning, and sus- tainability education. Dr. Canney received bachelors degrees in Civil Engineering and
Rapids, MN. He was instrumen- tal in growing the Itasca program from 10 students in 1992 to 160 students in 2010. In 2009, he worked with a national development team of engineering educators to develop the 100% PBL curriculum used in the Iron Range model. He has successfully acquired and managed over $10 million in educational grants including as PI on 7 grants from NSF. He has been in the classroom, teaching more than 20 credits per year to engineering students for more than 25 years. His specific areas of expertise are in active learning, faculty development, and learning community development. He has been awarded the 2012 Progress Min- nesota award, 2012 Labovitz Entrepreneurialism award, and 2012 Innovator of the
Polmear is a PhD student in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engi- neering at the University of Colorado, Boulder.Dr. Chris Swan, Tufts University Chris Swan is an associate professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering department at Tufts University. He has additional appointments in the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service and Center for Engineering Education and Outreach at Tufts. His current engineering education research interests focus on learning through service-based projects and using an entrepreneurial mindset to further engineering education innovations. He also researches the development of reuse strategies for waste materials.Dr. Daniel Knight