curriculum. Exploring eKSO development from makerspaceworkshops or maker community engagement rather than makerspace integrated EM courseprojects could provide more detailed knowledge of makerspace impacts on the development ofan entrepreneurial mindset.Acknowledgements:This research was supported through the Engineering Unleashed Fellowship program, funded bythe Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network. A special thanks to Dr. Margot Vigeant forserving as mentor throughout the makerspace project implementation and educational researchprocess, and colleague Brian Marks for his deployment and support from the College ofBusiness.References:[1] Longo, A., Yoder, B., Chavela Guerra, R. C., & R. Tsanov, “University Makerspaces: Characteristics and
Author"The entrepreneur", said the French economist J. B. Say around 1800, "shiftseconomic resources out of an area of lower and into an area of higher Tam 6productivity and greater yield.""This juxtaposition of plain speak and econometrics (defines) entrepreneurs (aspeople who) see a need and innovate, resulting in improved economic well- Robert Solow 4being.""Entrepreneurship is the creation of organizations." Sharma 3"An entrepreneur is a person who carries out new combinations, which may takethe form of new products, processes, markets, organizational forms, or sources Schumpeterof supply.""Entrepreneurship encompasses acts of organizational creation, renewal, or
AC 2012-3830: TEACHING CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION IN THECLASSROOMDr. Kenneth W. Van Treuren, Baylor University Ken Van Treuren is a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Baylor University, cur- rently serving as the Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development for the School of Engineer- ing and Computer Science. He received his B.S. in aeronautical engineering from the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., and his M.S. in engineering from Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. After serving as USAF pilot in KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft, he completed his D.Phil. in engineering sci- ences at the University of Oxford, U.K., and returned to the USAF Academy to teach heat transfer and
of Applied Magnetics in Santa Barbara, CA, a trial program in engineeringentrepreneurship was developed and offered to students of the College of Engineering andArchitecture at Washington State University (WSU). Given its successful introduction, Mr.Frank decided to endow the Harold Frank Engineering Entrepreneurship Institute. It is nowoperated in conjunction with faculty within the WSU College of Business EntrepreneurshipProgram. Additional support has been provided from the College of Business entrepreneurshipendowment, the Herbert B. Jones foundation (for development of the interdisciplinary seniorproject course), the NCIIA for support of senior level entrepreneurial projects and by smallerendowments provided by Lewis Lee and Larry
IDN [39, 41], whileTable 1 lists and defines the IDN symbols used in Figure 4 (plus Humor). Fig. 4. Team interaction represented using IDN: A, B, C are individuals in the team [39, 41] Table 1. Definitions of IDN symbols used in Figure 3 (plus Humor) [39, 41]To apply IDN in a research setting, team interactions are first video recorded, then converted intoan IDN representation, and then analyzed (see Figure 5). The video data of team interactions areinitially coded into separate participant speaker turns, which also include non-verbal gestures. Thedata file with speaker turns is analyzed by multiple IDN analysts to create a sequence of IDNsymbols; each speaker turn is assigned one symbol. This assignment is checked for inter
allow for significant traction in the realization of a cohesiveset of resources - what we refer to as an integrated Innovation and Entrepreneurship (I&E)Ecosystem. The goals of our integrated ecosystem include the creation of cohesive learningenvironments, programs, and services that better engage students, faculty and staff in a)developing an innovation and entrepreneurial mindset, b) creating a bridge across academic unitsand the community at-large to foster collaboration, and c) connecting student innovators andentrepreneurs with resource networks that enable outcomes related to startup business executionand market entry for new innovative products.Through this paper we share our grass roots journey to creating an I&E Ecosystem on
., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J. & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the Work Environment for Creativity, Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154–1184.11. Schumpeter, J. (1921). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Routledge.12. Carlson, C. R., & Wilmot, W. W. (2006). Innovation: The five disciplines for creating what customers want. New York: Crown Business.13. Ferguson, D. M., Cawthorne, J. E., Ahn, B., & Ohland, M. W. (2013). Engineering innovativeness. Journal of Engineering Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 1–16.14. Zhang, F., Kolmos, A., & De Graaf, E. (2013). Conceptualizations on innovation competency in a problem- and project-based learning curriculum: From an activity theory perspective
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Student EP1 0 Confidence Score Student EP1 0 Risk Score (a) (b) Scatterplot of Student EMP Independence vs Student EP1 0 Independence Score Scatterplot of Student EMP Persistence vs Student EP1 0 Determinatination Score
Page 11.1209.5the entire enterprise. Business managers, on the other hand, are concerned with their roles in thecorporation and with their status within that corporation. These differences in pressure points canbe discussed and emphasized in ethical studies for entrepreneurs.One way to more specifically teach ethics with a view to entrepreneurs’ pressures and concernsis through the use of cases. In our case “WWP: Crossing the Line to Entrepreneurship” (SeeAttachment B), we portray an engineer entering the world of entrepreneurship. For the first time,he finds himself with no higher level management to consult on writing a proposal or even onhow he advertises his services. His major concerns revolve around financial matters. He is lessconcerned
words,applying a systemic approach to CPS, which requires non-linear and divergent thinking might beconsidered counterintuitive. However, research substantiates the effectiveness and benefits offormal CPS training. Several studies show that CPS training can enhance solution quality andoriginality [7], increase individuals’ fluency and flexibility of ideas [8], and lead to increasedcreative behavior [9]. Incorporating CPS skills into existing programs and classes requires atheoretical understanding of CPS processes. Osborn [10] provided one of the first frameworks todefine the processes of CPS. According to Osborn, a CPS process involves three consecutivestages regardless of the domain of the problem: (a) fact-finding, (b) idea finding, and (c
were designed to capture evidence of institutionalchange using the Pathways team as the primary unit of analysis. Exhibit 5: Evaluation Questions 1. Regarding the teams’ early indicators for potential impact: a. Do teams see the value in Pathways activities for achieving their own goals? b. Do teams value being part of a collaborative group, going through this together? What are the perceived advantages of the group, if any? c. Do teams have clarity around why they are participating, what the opportunity is for them, and what they hope to accomplish? d. Do teams have clarity around the program’s activities and theory of change? e. Do teams have clarity around roles
andare currently preparing a proposal for a minor in entrepreneurship.As part of the Kern Entrepreneurship Education Network (KEEN) Program sponsored by theKern Family Foundation, UDM is developing a number of entrepreneurship case studies whichare being integrated into existing engineering fundamental courses. These case studies areintended to illustrate how entrepreneurs have capitalized on their knowledge of specificengineering topics. The aim is to provide routine exposures to successful engineeringentrepreneurs and principles of entrepreneurship throughout the curriculum. The ideal, long-termvision is that each engineering course would have one or more corresponding case studies. Thispaper will summarize the three cases which have been
Business Venturing22: 566-591.13. Edwards, L. J. and E. J. Muir (2005). "Promoting entrepreneurship at the University of Glamorgan through formal and informal learning." Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development12(4): 613-626.14. Ghazali, A., B. C. Ghosh, and R. S. T. Tay. “The determinants of self-employment choice among university graduates in Singapore.” International Journal of Management 12 (1995): 26-26.15. Kourilsky, M. L., and W. B. Walstad. “Entrepreneurship and female youth: Knowledge, attitudes, gender differences, and educational practices.” Journal of Business venturing 13, no. 1 (1998): 77-88.16. Phan, P. H., P. K, Wong, and C. K. Wang. “Antecedents to entrepreneurship among university students in
AC 2011-734: ENGINEERING EDUCATON AND THE ENTREPRENEURIALMINDCynthia C. Fry, Baylor University Sr. Lecturer of Computer Science, Assistant Dean of the School of Engineering & Computer Science, Baylor UniversityWilliam M. Jordan, Baylor University WILLIAM JORDAN is the Mechanical Engineering Department Chair at Baylor University. He has B.S. and M.S. degrees in Metallurgical Engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, an M.A. degree in Theology from Denver Seminary, and a Ph.D. in mechanics and materials from Texas A & M University. He teaches materials related courses. He does work in the areas of entrepreneurship and appropriate technology in developing countries. He also writes and does research in
consult- ing firm in automation and testing systems. Dr. Kennedy was the Co-founder and CEO of the start-up company, Restorative Biosciences Inc., an early-stage company that focused on developing anti-fouling, anti-inflammatory coatings, and therapeutics for ophthalmic applications. Dr. Kennedy was formerly the Chief Strategy and Innovation Officer for OraVu LLC., developer of the DeVA-1 Dental Vision Assistant system designed to provide microscopic live HD vision between the tooth and gum. Dr. Kennedy is currently a faculty member in the Technology Entrepreneurship and Management (TEM) Department in the Fulton School of Engineering at Arizona State University and former National Chair and Professor of Biomedical
specifically we answered the followingquestions: a) Which of the five skills do innovators most frequently use first in their innovationprocess?; b) With which of the five skills do innovators most often conclude the innovationprocess?; c) Which sequence of skills do innovators most frequently use?; d) Which skills are Page 24.354.2central to innovation?Research FrameworkUsing the Innovator’s DNA as a framework, this study identifies the sequences of skills used bysuccessful innovators. The skills in question are observation, questioning, experimenting,association, and networking. These skills are defined in The Innovator’s DNA as follows: 1
these talented young people to stay in our region. Our immediate goal is to continuedeveloping a hybrid educational/economic development program that converts state tax dollarsinto regional and state-wide wealth. 1. Katz, J.A. ―The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education:: 1876- 1999‖, Journal of Business Venturing,18:2, 2003, pp283—300 2. Carlsson, B. and Acs, Z.J. and Audretsch, D.B. and Braunerhjelm, P., ―Knowledge creation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth: a historical review‖, Industrial and Corporate Change, 19:6, 2009 3. Khanduja, D. and Singla, V. and Singh, R, ―Entrepreneurial ambience of engineering education in India‖, 2:4, 2009, pp341—355. 4
Paper ID #10497Initial Investigation of Analytic Hierarchy Process to Teach Creativity in De-sign and EngineeringDr. Jennifer Grimsley Michaeli P.E., Old Dominion University Dr. Jennifer G. Michaeli is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering Technology of Old Dominion University (ODU). She received her PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Old Dominion University, her MSc in Ocean Systems Management from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and her BSc in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from Webb Institute. Prior to her arrival to ODU, Dr. Michaeli spent over a decade of service in the Department
ideation? Why can person A in agiven situation generate a potential innovation while person B, perhaps even with a substantiallysimilar background, cannot? Consideration of the concepts/principles presented in Figure 4provides engineering and technology education researchers a framework for raising questionsthat might lead to fruitful investigations. The ten speculations listed below are initial examples ofsuch research questions. Perhaps the innovator(’s):1. knowledge representation is more holistic, i.e., established as a system as contrasted to hundreds/thousands of discrete individual facts/ideas?2. has a better memory and a larger/wider store of information to work with , or perhaps the innovator just has a better/quicker way of
AC 2010-2012: CROSS-DISCIPLINARY TRAINING OF RESEARCHERS INENTREPRENEURIAL DISCOVERYRobert Keynton, University of LouisvilleJames Fiet, University of LouisvillePankaj Patel, Ball State University Page 15.336.1© American Society for Engineering Education, 2010 Cross-Disciplinary Training of Researchers in Entrepreneurial DiscoveryIntroductionThe work presented in this paper are the outcomes from an NSF-sponsored Partnership forInnovations program which involved the development of a new training paradigm in an attemptto:(1) stimulate the transformation of knowledge created by the nationally-renowned researchand education enterprise at the University into innovations to
. Page 26.1658.12ReferencesAnthony, S., Johnson, M. W., Sinfield, J., & Altman, E. (2008). The innovator’s guide to growth: Putting disruptive innovation to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.Bilen, S. G., Kisenwether, E., Rzasa, S. E., & Wise, J. C. (2005). Developing and assessing students’ entrepreneurial skills and mind-set. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(2), 233–243.Blank, S., & Dorf, B. (2012). The startup owner’s manual: The step-by-step guide for building a great company. Pescadero, CA: K & S Ranch.Christensen, C. (1997). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business Review Press.Duval-Couetil, N., Gotch, C. M., & Yi, S. (2014). The
described in this paper and the National Science Foundation for the two grantsthat support this research (EEC-0835992 & DUE 0817394)References: 1. Weilerstein, P., & Shartrand, A. (2008). Proceedings from the American Society for Engineering Education annual meeting. A decade of technological innovation: A retrospective view of the first decade of the NCIIA. Pittsburgh, PA. 2. BankBoston. (1997). MIT: The impact of innovation. Boston, MA: Author. 3. Vesper, K. H., & Gartner, W. B. (1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education. Journal of Business Venturing, 12(5), 403-421 4. Levie, J. (1999). Entrepreneurship education in higher education in England: A survey. London: London Business
, D. Kum Tien, "A Blueprint for implementing Grand Challenge Scholars’Programme: A Case Study of Taylor’s University," Journal of Engineering Science andTechnology, Special Issue April 2003, pp. 80-86.[2] T. Byers, T. Seelig, S. Sheppard, P. Weilerstein, "Entrepreneurship: It’s Role in EngineeringEducation," The Bridge, p. 35, Summer 2013.[3] A. Richert-Kaźmierska, E. Lechman, Chapt 1, 2. Creating Entrepreneurial Mindset,University College Denmark, 2014.[4] L. Bosman, B. Mayer, P. McNamara, "Promoting Entrepreneurially Minded Learningthrough Online Discussions," presented at 124th ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June25-28, Columbus, OH, 2017.[5] M. Taks, P. Tynjala, M. Toding, "Engineering Students’ Experiences in
leadersshipdevelopm ment for our students; theese views arre shared by our alumni w who also suppport the efffort.Unfortun nately we hav ve yet to seccure a fundin ng line, and sso our activiities must relly on one-timmefunding from f separatte departmen nts and officees, like the ooffice of the Dean of thee Faculty. A Also,because ofo limited fuunding, we have h not yet been b able to accomplishh our goal off offering
included the creation of anEntrepreneurial Application Center.Relationship of Course to Program Outcomes - meets the intent of ABET a-k OutcomesOutcome Support Rating Rationale for Rating a 3 Student will use knowledge, techniques, skills, and Page 15.252.8 modern tools learned in their previous courses. b 3 Students will apply current knowledge and applications of mathematics, science, engineering, and technology for their projects. c 2
of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285-295.17. Kim, K. H., & Coxon, S. V. (2013). The Creativity Crisis, Possible Causes, and What Schools Can Do. In J. B. Jones & L. J. Flint (Eds.), The Creative Imperative (pp. 53-68). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.18. Rollo May: The Courage to Create. New York: Nortin, rev. ed., 1994.19. U. Bertram, W. Preißing, “Navigieren im offenen System: Unternehmensführung ist ein künstlerischer Prozess,”, Leonberg: Container Verl., 2007.20. J. A. Fodor, “A theory of the cild’s theory of mind,” in Cognition, vol. 44, 1992, pp. 282-296.21. S. H Schwartz, “Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries,” in M
for an application. Additionally, several other deans felt that entrepreneurial thinking enables students to bebecome more innovative and forward-thinking. Dean A also remarked, “The people with thatentrepreneurial mindset will be out in the lead and will be steering the needle where we'reheaded, versus just always catching up and playing catch up”. Several deans described thatexposure to entrepreneurial thinking enables students to more readily adapt to changes and cansupport their problem-solving abilities. Dean B chose to expand on how entrepreneurial thinkingcan reframe the idea of failure from being a bad thing to a necessary part of the design process.Dean B (from a primarily undergraduate-focused institution) comments: I
Paper ID #17224Digital Business Framework: Shaping Engineering Education for Next-Genin the Era of Digital EconomyProf. Victor Taratukhin, Stanford University Victor Taratukhin received his Ph.D. in Engineering Design in 1998 and Ph.D. in Computing Sciences and Engineering in 2002. Victor was a Lecturer in Decision Engineering and Module Leader (IT for Product Realization) at Cranfield University, UK (2001-2004), SAP University Alliances Program Director (2004- 2012). He is Managing Director, Competence Center ERP at European Research Center for Information Systems (ERCIS), University of Muenster, Germany (2012-present) and
(1): p. 1-16.5. National Academy of Engineering, Grand Challenges for Engineering, G.C.f.E. Committee, Editor. 2008, National Academy of Sciences on behalf of the National Academy of Engineering. p. 54.6. Rittel, H. and M. Webber, Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 1973. 4(2): p. 155-169.7. Boyer, E., Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. 1990, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching: Princeton, NJ. p. 151.8. Yin, R., Case Study Research: Design and Methods 2009, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.9. Godin, B. and C. Doré, Measuring the impacts of science: Beyond the economic dimension. History and Sociology of S&T Statistics, 2004.10. United
. Mar P´erez-Sanagust´ın, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Mar P´erez-Sanagust´ın is a researcher and Assistant Professor at the Computer Science Department of the Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile and the Director of the Engineering Education Division at the same university. Her research interests are technology-enhanced learning, engineering education, MOOCs and b-learning.Miss Manuela De la vega, Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile Manuela de la Vega is an Education Data Analyst in the School of Engineering at Pontificia Universidad Cat´olica de Chile. She creates qualitative and quantitative instruments for measuring and evaluating teaching and learning experiences in Engineering. She