ADAPTING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TECHNIQUES FOR CREATIVE TECHNICAL COURSE DESIGN

ADAPTING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TECHNIQUES FOR CREATIVE TECHNICAL COURSE DESIGN

E. Marasco, L. Behjat (2023).  ADAPTING ENTREPRENEURSHIP TECHNIQUES FOR CREATIVE TECHNICAL COURSE DESIGN . 414-424.

Innovation and creative capacity are integral skills for the development and training of engineering graduates. Traditionally, creativity is predominant in design-based courses, rather than technical engineering or science courses, despite the need for students to apply creative problem-solving to technical challenges. This paper describes the development of a course design architecture for designing technical postsecondary courses with embedded learning outcomes in creative thinking. The proposed framework adapts techniques traditionally used in entrepreneurship and business development and considers how they may be used to address the CDIO standards in both course and curricula design. This work includes the CDIO-informed adaptation of an innovation toolkit model for post-secondary course design, considering how elements such as customers, team members, value proposition, and product offering have similar parallels to post-secondary education. The use of a structured course design architecture for teaching creativity within technical courses allows instructors to consider the educational needs of students and industry. The proposed framework adapts a mapping tool used for entrepreneurial product development, requiring course designers to consider the outcomes for their intended users, the strengths of their team, the goals of their course, and the potential pains or gains of their course offering. These planning aspects complement the CDIO standards, in particular the identification of CDIO context, planning of learning outcomes, integrating across curricula concepts, and designing and implementing learning experiences. The results of two implementation case studies are described in the context of electrical and software engineering education. The first case study is a fourth-year technical elective in designing algorithms. The second case study is a first-year computing course. Both courses showed higher levels of engagement and better learning outcomes after the implementation of the proposed changes. Results demonstrate how courses can be improved through this entrepreneurship planning model to include more creativity, application, and innovation, while adding value to technical courses without impacting the required domain knowledge learning.

Authors (New): 
Emily Marasco
Laleh Behjat
Pages: 
414-424
Affiliations: 
University of Calgary, Canada
Keywords: 
Curriculum Design
Course design
Change
Creativity
framework
CDIO Standard 2
CDIO Standard 3
CDIO Standard 7
CDIO Standard 9
CDIO Standard 12
Year: 
2023
Reference: 
Atwood, S. A. & Pretz, J. E. (2016). Creativity as a factor in persistence and academic achievement of engineering undergraduates. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 105 (pp. 540-559).: 
Brink, S., Carlsson, C., Enelund, M., Georgsson, F., Keller, E., & Lyng, R., et al (2020). Assessing Curriculum Agility in a CDIO Engineering Education. Proceedings of the 16th International CDIO Conference (pp. 13-15). Chalmers UT, Sweden: 
Bruton, A. (2010). Toward the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning for Entrepreneurship (SoTLE). ICSB World Conference Proceedings (pp. 1-32). Washington. : 
Charyton, C., Jagacinski, R., Merrill, J., Clifton, W., & DeDios, S. (2011). Assessing creativity specific to engineering with the revised creative engineering design assessment. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 4 (pp. 778-799).: 
Felder, R. M. (1988). Creativity in engineering education. Chemical Engineering Education. : 
Fullan, M. (2015). The New Meaning of Educational Change, fifth edition. Teachers College Press.: 
Genco, N., Holtta-Otto, K. & Seepersad, C. (2012). An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 101 (pp. 60-81).: 
Google. (2023, January 30). Google for Education. Website. https://edu.google.com/ Intel Education. (2023, January 30). The Future of Education Technology and Solutions. Website. http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/education/intel-ineducation.html: 
Kelly, R. (2016). Creative Development: Transforming Education through Design Thinking, Innovation, and Invention. Canada: Brush Education Inc.: 
Microsoft Learn. (2023, January 30). Educator Center. Website. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/educator-center/ : 
Ormazabal, M., Serrano, N., Blanco, C., Carazo, F., Aldazábal, J., & Azasu, S. (2022). Aligning Stakeholder Needs with Program Requirements Using a Multi-Stakeholder Survey. Proceedings of the 18th International CDIO Conference (pp. 610-621). Reykjavik University, Iceland.: 
Robinson, K. & Azzam, A. M. (2009). Why creativity now? (interview). Educational Leadership, vol. 67, no. 1 (pp. 22-26).: 
Straight Up Business Institute. (2023, January 30). The straight up toolkit. Website. https://www.straightupbusiness.institute/toolkit/: 
Strategyzer. (2023, January 30). Business model canvas. Website. https://strategyzer.com: 
Taylor, I. & Mannis, A. (2008). "Making Change Happen": Supporting Collaborative Developments in Departments. Proceedings of the 4th International CDIO Conference (no. 9). Hogeschool Gent, Belgium.: 
Go to top
randomness