Search

This evidence-based practice paper provides a roadmap for addressing a key challenge associated with designing and leading CoPs (Communities of Practice) for faculty development: there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the design and implementation of a CoP. CoPs are by nature context-specific and designed to address the unique needs of the individuals and organizations of which they are comprised. As such, the design, implementation, and assessment of a CoP requires an iterative, flexible, and responsive approach. In this paper we share (1) findings from a participatory evaluation of ten different CoPs together supporting more than 150 faculty across a 2-year time frame, which examines the factors that should be considered in the design and facilitation of CoPs, to support faculty in their integration of sustainable design and equity into engineering, (2) components of an evidence-based toolkit, currently under development, to help guide other practitioners in their adoption and assessment of CoPs for faculty development, and (3) case studies from CoP participants capturing their first-hand experience and outcomes of being part of a CoP focused on the integration of sustainable design. The participatory evaluation approach, and the toolkit, which utilizes an emergent learning framework, together provide a roadmap for implementation and assessment of CoPs across a variety of contexts. These are summarized as nine key steps: (i) Start with a Definition, (ii) Identify a Facilitator, (iii) Shore up the Infrastructure Needed, (iv) Align on Expectations for the CoP, (v) Offer a Kick Off Workshop, (vi) Foster Psychological Safety and Trust, (vii) Create a Group-driven Agenda, (viii) Practice Asking for and Providing Help and (ix) Learn About and Evolve Your CoP. The presentation format for this session combines a lightning talk of the evaluation approach and key findings, followed by small group discussions with attendees focused on the perceived efficacy and suggested optimizations of the toolkit. Attendees will then have the option to receive the final version of the toolkit, once available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of institutions offering entrepreneurship courses and programs has grown dramatically over the last decade. Many of these programmatic offerings have been driven by the passion of individual faculty champions. Unfortunately, the programming often remains the responsibility of that founding faculty champion. In such cases, if the faculty champion leaves, the entrepreneurship programming declines or may be completely lost. VentureWell, a not-for-profit that supports STEM innovators and entrepreneurs, has utilized its Faculty Grants Program to provide seed funding to faculty champions to create courses and programs that enhance student development of skills and knowledge associated with innovation and entrepreneurship. To foster lasting impact, the program sets the expectation that meritorious educational innovations will continue after funding ends. While this has occurred in most cases (over the last 5 years 72% of grantees' claim activities have continued, expanded or been institutionalized), continuation of the program typically remains the responsibility of the founding faculty members, an indicator that institutionalization is not yet complete. Research on propagation and institutionalization of educational innovations has suggested that an institutionalization plan should be constructed in three phases: (i) describe the gap between the current situation and the desired future situation, (ii) prepare a plan for bridging the gap, and (iii) prepare a plan for monitoring progress toward bridging the gap. This paper describes how VentureWell is integrating this three-phase approach to institutionalization, Designing for Institutionalization (DI), into its Faculty Grants program. The DI approach is an adaptation of the three-phase Designing for Sustained Adoption Framework, which supports educational developers to increase the percentage of educational innovations that are propagated beyond the original developers. Case studies of institutionalization efforts provide lessons that could be applied by others interested in institutionalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes Pathways to Innovation (Pathways), a national program that uses a team-based guided change process to help faculty and institutions introduce and embed innovation and entrepreneurship into formal and informal educational experiences for undergraduate engineers. The paper briefly reviews the program design, its researchbased foundations, and the sequence of activities for the initial cohort of twelve teams from twelve different schools. Initial results from teams' efforts, some of the "lessons learned" from the evaluation of the first year, and the implications of those lessons both for expansion of the program and for engineering education more generally are discussed. Each school's Pathways effort is led by a team1 and the teams themselves are in turn gathered into a national network.2 The schools vary widely in their institutional profile with regard to size, student demographics, governance, initial breadth of entrepreneurship education opportunities for engineering students, and availability of off-campus entrepreneurship opportunities in the surrounding region. Despite these differences, multiple factors were identified over the course of the program year that were associated with success in making entrepreneurship education more available and accessible for undergraduate engineering students. Participating schools implemented strategies that included introducing new courses and programs, developing learning spaces, and creating faculty development activities. Program staff modified elements of Pathways in response to formative evaluation activities, as well as to strengthen specific components associated with team success. The program now includes 37 schools and will continue to expand; while exciting, this growth presents scaling challenges for program staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incorporating entrepreneurship into the engineering curriculum is compelling for many reasons. Entrepreneurship education has been found to boost GPA and retention rates of engineering students, provides students with the skills and attitudes needed to innovatively contribute to existing organizations and pursue their own ventures, and has the potential to address current and anticipated workforce demands. Entrepreneurship is taught most effectively using experiential methods. Given that Capstone design courses are applied and experiential by nature, they provide an optimal context for integrating entrepreneurship into engineering education. Indeed, Ochs et al. illustrated ways to integrate entrepreneurship into Capstone while simultaneously adhering to ABET standards. Shartrand and Weilerstein also identified various practices for incorporating entrepreneurship into Capstone design courses, and identified traditional and entrepreneurial Capstone elements. However, it is unclear what Capstone design instructors actually practice in this area. To better understand how and to what degree entrepreneurial elements are integrated into Capstone design classes, 225 Capstone design faculty were surveyed with an instrument designed using the entrepreneurial Capstone practices described by Shartrand and Weilerstein. The survey sample included attendees of the bi-annual Capstone Design Conference, VentureWell grantees, Epicenter Pathways to Innovation team members and Pathways referrals. An explanatory multiphase mixed methods design was used involving the collection of quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data illustrate the extent to which faculty incorporate different entrepreneurial practices in their Capstone design courses and how important faculty believe it is to increase different entrepreneurial practices in Capstone design. The qualitative survey data provide additional insight about how faculty incorporate different entrepreneurial practices in their Capstone design courses and the challenges (perceived and actual) to implementing entrepreneurially focused Capstones. These challenges can be summarized into three overarching themes: 1) the Capstone tradition; 2) faculty exposure and experience; and 3) university culture and support. Implications, limitations, and future research are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]