VentureWell

Given changes in the global economy, innovative, entrepreneurial engineers are in high demand.As a result, entrepreneurship has become one of the fastest growing academic areas in engineering.Yet, we know little about what engineering students actually know regarding entrepreneurship in engineering.To address this issue, we devised a multi-institution pilot study using the Entrepreneurship Knowledge Inventory (EKI), a tool that measures students' familiarity with common technology entrepreneurship concepts and terms.The pilot study was conducted across six engineering schools investigating the differences between freshmen and senior engineers in their self-reported knowledge of technology entrepreneurship terms and concepts.The data from the EKI were analyzed to determine if significant differences in entrepreneurial knowledge existed between freshmen and senior engineering students, as well as between senior engineering students with and without past entrepreneurial experience.Results show some differences between freshmen and senior engineering students in certain content areas, as well as between engineering seniors with experience versus those students without any entrepreneurship experience.These findings identify gaps in engineering student knowledge, and suggest areas for improvement in specific areas of entrepreneurship education.

Abstract Supporting Change in Entrepreneurship Education: Creating a Faculty Development Program Grounded in Results from a Literature ReviewEpicenter, an NSF-funded STEP Center, is creating a team-based program to supportinstitutional change and faculty development, the Pathways to Innovation Program, with the goalof integrating entrepreneurship and innovation education into formal and informal engineeringcurriculums in higher education. To guide the design and implementation of the facultydevelopment program, a literature review was conducted during June-August 2013 to identifyeffective models and promising practices from the complementary topic areas of facultydevelopment and change in higher education. During the review and selection process, relevantarticles were expected to address the following parameters:1. Scale: the faculty development program should be regional or national;2. Topic: the program should support engineering faculty in adopting or adapting curricula;3. Context: engineering faculty should integrate entrepreneurship and innovation curricula;4. Sustainability: successful changes would be institutionalized at all levels;5. Evaluation: faculty development programs would demonstrate changed attitudes, knowledge, and practices in engineering faculty and students.Although articles that definitively addressed all of these parameters were not found, we wereable to identify articles that reported promising practices or models around Scale, Context, and tosome extent, Evaluation. We synthesized these results into findings about the components ofeffective faculty development and change programs.Components of Meaningful Faculty Development Programs:• The combination of duration, experiential learning opportunities, and peer interaction are factors that contribute to meaningful faculty development programs.• The content and activity of faculty development programs should be constructed around a learning theory and principles of instructional design.• Evaluation, beyond satisfaction, is not conducted programmatically in faculty development programs; but it should be incorporated into every stage of a faculty development program, including pre-planning activities.Components of Fostering Change in Higher Education• Curriculum change must be viewed systemically. It is not merely a matter of ‘adding-on’ or ‘adding-in’ missing or new curriculum components.• Theories of change must guide the work of making change in order to evaluate the success of particular approaches or the impact of the change effort.• External facilitators are essential to managing group change processes and to creating a less stressful learning environment when faculty members begin to question their approaches.Our paper will present detailed results about promising faculty development models andinstitutional and curricular change management processes. It will discuss implications of thefindings and recommendations for the design of the Pathways to Innovation Program. And it willreport on the progress of the program launch (planned for Spring 2014) and integration intoentrepreneurship and innovation curriculums at participating institutions of higher education.

learning with a focus on student learning at disciplinary interfaces, 2) clinical diagnostics and therapeutics for diseases of the lungs, 3) wound healing, and 4) performance of soft gel materials.

The Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation (Epicenter)'s initiative for faculty development and institutional change — called Pathways to Innovation — is now working with more than 35 schools across the country to embed learning opportunities in innovation and entrepreneurship into the undergraduate engineering curriculum. At each institution, Pathways teams begin their work with a structured process of mapping the assets and identifying gaps at their school to create a analysis. This process can be useful as a starting point in any institutional change process, particularly when a broad set of stakeholders within engineering or across disciplines need to be considered and engaged. At this special session, participants will have the opportunity to explore the landscape tool using an authentic data set co-created by the group, and provide input into the next version(s) of the tool. Presenters will also provide case studies of how the tool has been used by schools of engineering to drive curricular and co/extra-curricular change at both small and large institutions.

This work will present preliminary results from a study of entrepreneurship programs serving undergraduate engineering students. The purpose of the study is to examine questions relating to students' perceptions and understanding of entrepreneurship education. In addition, the study addresses faculty members' perceptions of entrepreneurship education including the critical skills and concepts that should be taught. To address these questions, we developed a study to better understand the faculty and students who are engaged in engineering entrepreneurship teaching and learning. Entrepreneurship program directors were asked to identify program faculty who were teaching in spring 2012. Faculty completed a comprehensive questionnaire about their beliefs and practices regarding entrepreneurship education, focusing on a specific course they were teaching in the spring 2012 semester. They were also asked to invite their students in this course to complete a questionnaire that asked students about their prior entrepreneurship experiences, familiarity with technology entrepreneurship concepts, and attitudes towards entrepreneurship. In addition, students were asked to indicate entrepreneurship resources they had used on their campuses. This study will provide systematic data from a variety of institutions about faculty who teach entrepreneurship and the students they teach. We expect that this knowledge will provide an important baseline against which future improvements in the field can be identified and assessed.