Virtual On line
June 22, 2020
June 22, 2020
June 26, 2021
ENT Division Technical Session: Assessment Tools and Practices
Entrepreneurship & Engineering Innovation
18
10.18260/1-2--34312
https://peer.asee.org/34312
807
Laine Rumreich is a Master's student studying Computer Science and Engineering at The Ohio State University. She completed her undergraduate research thesis in the Department of Engineering Education and has been a research assistant in the department for three years. Her primary research interests are in the areas of coding education and engineering entrepreneurship.
Faith Logan is a current sophomore at the Ohio State University, where she is pursuing a degree in Secondary Mathematics Education. Outside of class, she is an undergraduate researcher for the Department of Engineering Education and a math tutor for the Ohio State University's Mathematics Department.
Nicholas is an Undergraduate Research Associate with The Ohio State Department of Engineering Education. He is in the process of completing a B.S. in Computer Science and Engineering at Ohio State. His interests include incorporating Entrepreneurial Minded Learning into engineering coursework and interdisciplinary innovation.
Krista Kecskemety is an Assistant Professor of Practice in the Department of Engineering Education at The Ohio State University. Krista received her B.S. in Aerospace Engineering at The Ohio State University in 2006 and received her M.S. from Ohio State in 2007. In 2012, Krista completed her Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering at Ohio State. Her engineering education research interests include investigating first-year engineering student experiences, faculty experiences, and the connection between the two.
Ann D. Christy, PE, is a professor of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering and a professor of Engineering Education at the Ohio State University (OSU). She earned both her B.S. in agricultural engineering and M.S. in biomedical engineering at OSU, and her Ph.D. in environmental engineering at Clemson University. She worked for an engineering consulting firm before entering academia and continues to collaborate with the consulting industry. She has taught courses in bioenergy, biological engineering, capstone design, HVAC, thermodynamics, waste management, professional development, and engineering teaching. Her research interests include energy, the environment, and engineering education. She is assistant dean for teaching and learning in the College of Engineering. She is a second-generation woman engineer.
The entrepreneurial mindset (EM) has become of increasing interest for engineering educators as a method to better prepare students for the workforce and generate more valuable innovations. In this paper, EM is defined in terms of six principles: Curiosity, Connections, Creating Value, Communication, Collaboration, and Character. These principles, labeled as the 6 C’s, are adapted from materials from the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN). However, despite the increased adoption of EM by educators, few tools exist to aid evaluation of curricula through an EM lens and few studies investigate their effectiveness. Three EM course content evaluation tools have been created in the recent past by KEEN-affiliated universities: KEEN Student Outcomes (KSO), expanded KSO (eKSO), and Entrepreneurial Mindset Learning Objectives (EMLO). These tools have not yet been evaluated against one another to determine if they are measuring similar EM concepts. The goal of this paper is to compare and evaluate these three tools. To do so, each tool is used on three existing courses at The Ohio State University, each designed with EM in mind and each representing a different year within an undergraduate engineering curriculum. A document analysis was done for each course using each EM evaluation tool, generating nine datasets. The results for each course were then compared across the evaluation tools to measure similarities and differences between the three tools. It was found that the three tools were largely inconsistent with one another in their determination of the courses’ level of adoption of the 6 C’s of EM. Additionally, it was found that many aspects of the tools were overly abstract or particular, making them difficult to use for the purposes of measuring the EM content of a course. Although these three sets of objectives may be useful for integrating EM content in courses, the findings of this paper indicate that they are not measuring the same things and are thus difficult to utilize for the purposes of measurement.
Rumreich, L. E., & Logan, F., & Dix, Z., & Sattele, N. R., & Kecskemety, K. M., & Christy, A. D. (2020, June), Comparison of Entrepreneurial Mindset Course Learning Objectives: Evaluating Consistency and Clarity Paper presented at 2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual On line . 10.18260/1-2--34312
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2020 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015