Quantcast


CURATOR
A pinboard by
Prateek Shekhar

Post-doctoral Research Fellow, University of Michigan

PINBOARD SUMMARY

My research area is in the emerging field of Engineering Education. The focus of this field is on improving and enhancing student learning in engineering courses to equip them with skills needed to solve complex modern day problems. I use theories from educational psychology and learning sciences to better design engineering curriculum and instruction. For the current project, I am working on finding effective ways to instilling entrepreneurial skills in students. This involves assessing learning outcomes such as entrepreneurial self-efficacy, innovativeness and risk-taking skills in tradtional Engineering Design and newly formed Entrepreneurship Courses. The purpose of this work is to compare the two approaches using student learning data and suggest recommendations for development of entrepreneurship education programs for engineering students.

3 ITEMS PINNED

Closing the divide: accelerating technology commercialization by catalyzing the university entrepreneurial ecosystem with I-Corps™

Abstract: Abstract In recent years, universities have seen an increasing amount of activity in entrepreneurship and commercialization, not only for students, but for faculty as well. Traditionally, these initiatives have been separate, such that programs and curriculum have been focused on supporting just students or just faculty. In 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the NSF I-Corps™ program, an innovative funding program that not only offered principle investigators (PIs) funding, but also exposed PIs to an innovation/entrepreneurship curriculum as well. The University of Michigan (U-M) was one of the first two NSF I-Corps™ Nodes funded in 2012 and has leveraged the program to catalyze the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper describes the growth of this entrepreneurial ecosystem since 1983, the call of entrepreneurship in the U-M College of Engineering and describes the role the U-M NSF I-Corps™ program has played across the university. The paper concludes with lessons learned and recommendations to administrators and policy makers considering more active promotion of academic entrepreneurship and commercialization in universities.AbstractIn recent years, universities have seen an increasing amount of activity in entrepreneurship and commercialization, not only for students, but for faculty as well. Traditionally, these initiatives have been separate, such that programs and curriculum have been focused on supporting just students or just faculty. In 2012, the National Science Foundation (NSF) launched the NSF I-Corps™ program, an innovative funding program that not only offered principle investigators (PIs) funding, but also exposed PIs to an innovation/entrepreneurship curriculum as well. The University of Michigan (U-M) was one of the first two NSF I-Corps™ Nodes funded in 2012 and has leveraged the program to catalyze the entrepreneurial ecosystem. This paper describes the growth of this entrepreneurial ecosystem since 1983, the call of entrepreneurship in the U-M College of Engineering and describes the role the U-M NSF I-Corps™ program has played across the university. The paper concludes with lessons learned and recommendations to administrators and policy makers considering more active promotion of academic entrepreneurship and commercialization in universities.

Pub.: 01 Dec '16, Pinned: 21 Aug '17

Creating an Instrument to Measure Student Response to Instructional Practices

Abstract: Calls for the reform of education in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have inspired many instructional innovations, some research based. Yet adoption of such instruction has been slow. Research has suggested that students' response may significantly affect an instructor's willingness to adopt different types of instruction.We created the Student Response to Instructional Practices (StRIP) instrument to measure the effects of several variables on student response to instructional practices. We discuss the step-by-step process for creating this instrument.The development process had six steps: item generation and construct development, validity testing, implementation, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and instrument modification and replication. We discuss pilot testing of the initial instrument, construct development, and validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses.This process produced 47 items measuring three parts of our framework. Types of instruction separated into four factors (interactive, constructive, active, and passive); strategies for using in-class activities into two factors (explanation and facilitation); and student responses to instruction into five factors (value, positivity, participation, distraction, and evaluation).We describe the design process and final results for our instrument, a useful tool for understanding the relationship between type of instruction and students' response.

Pub.: 10 Apr '17, Pinned: 21 Aug '17