AC : STUDENT IMPACT OF AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP COURSE

Transcription

1 AC : STUDENT IMPACT OF AN ENTREPRENEURSHIP COURSE Akash Choudhary, University of Missouri Akash Choudhary graduated from the Modern School in New Delhi and went on to receive his bachelor s degree in Electrical Engineering from KDK College of Engineering, Nagpur University in India. In January 2004, he enrolled as a master s student in Engineering Management & Systems Engineering Department at the University of Missouri-Rolla (UMR) and graduated in May Donald Myers, University of Missouri Don Myers is a Professor of the Engineering Management Department at the University of Missouri Rolla. He holds BSME, MSME, MBA, and JD degrees. He is a registered Missouri Professional Engineer, a member of the Missouri Bar, and a registered Patent Attorney with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Prior to joining UMR, he served in various industrial assignments for four Fortune 100 companies. He served on the U.S. Senate Science Committee staff and as the Science Adviser to the Governor of Missouri. His research interests include issues related to management of technology, technology transfer, technology policy, strategic technology management, and the legal aspects of technology. He is a past ASEE Zone III Chair and a member of the ASEE Board of Directors. Halvard Nystrom, University of Missouri Halvard E. Nystrom is an Associate Professor of Engineering Management at the University of Missouri Rolla, where he has been a full time research and teaching faculty for ten years. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering with an emphasis in Management of Technology from Arizona State University. He earned his MBA from Stanford and a B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Illinois, Urbana. His research interests are in marketing, technology management, financial management and engineering education. He also has fourteen years of industrial experience with Digital Equipment Corp., Castle and Cooke Inc. and Westinghouse (R&D Center). Dr. Nystrom was awarded a Fulbright Scholar Grant in 2005 to teach in Oman. Mihir Gokhale, University of Missouri Mihir Gokhale is a master student in Engineering Management at the University of Missouri Rolla. He received his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from Pune University, India. American Society for Engineering Education, 2007 Page

2 Student Impact of an Entrepreneurship Course Abstract Many individuals believe that entrepreneurship cannot be taught. They believe that success is primarily depended on personality characteristics that would not be impacted by course work. This paper investigates the educational impact of one entrepreneurship course, and how it affects the entrepreneurial decisions and interest in entrepreneurship of the engineering students who took it. This compares with earlier studies that have focused on the impact of entrepreneurship courses on career decisions of students with management or other nonengineering backgrounds. This research is based on a survey of 122 engineering students who took an entrepreneurship class offered by the University during the last 25 years. Students were asked to provide their perspective on the impact this course had on their career. They were asked how the course impacted their understanding and interest in entrepreneurship, if it raised their awareness of this career choice, if it impacted the career path they considered, if it affected the career they chose, if they learned useful techniques that helped them in their careers or in communicating with entrepreneurs. With this information, an assessment can be made of the impact that this course, and the study of entrepreneurship, had on their careers. The students are also asked to describe their entrepreneurial activities since graduating. The course was the most often cited of the many choices that were given which influenced them to become involved with entrepreneurship. The conclusion of the study is that this course had a significant impact on them. Even though it did not have a major impact on the career path considered and chosen initially by the students, the result of this study suggests that these engineering students perceive they have become more interested in entrepreneurship after taking the course and many perceive to have become successful entrepreneurs. Introduction Entrepreneurship is a dynamic process of vision, change, and creation. It requires an application of energy and passion towards the creation and implementation of new ideas and creative solutions. Essential ingredients include the willingness to take calculated risks in terms of time, equity, or career; the ability to formulate an effective venture team; the creative skill to marshal needed resources; and fundamental skill of building a solid business plan; and finally, the vision to recognize opportunity where others see chaos, contradiction, and confusion 1. Entrepreneurship is more than the mere creation of business. The characteristics of seeking opportunities, taking risks beyond security, and having the tenacity to push an idea through to reality combined into a special perspective of the entrepreneurs. An entrepreneurial perspective can be developed in individuals. This perspective can be exhibited inside or outside an organization, in profit or not-for-profit enterprises, and in business or non-business activities for the purpose of bringing forth creative ideas. Thus, entrepreneurship is an integrated concept that permeates an individual s business in an innovative manner. It is this perspective that has revolutionized the way business is conducted at every level and in every country. Until 1970, very few universities offered entrepreneurship courses. The Harvard Business School introduced an entrepreneurship course in 1945, apparently in response to students who were returning from World War II military service to an economy that was in transition due to the collapse of the weapons industries. The subject of entrepreneurship was not generally Page

3 fashionable in the decades that followed. But by 1970, the number of business schools offering courses in entrepreneurship had begun to change dramatically. As the number of schools offering entrepreneurship courses grew, so did the number of schools offering more than one course in entrepreneurship 2. More than 1,600 schools are now teaching entrepreneurship related courses 3. Solomon, Duffy, and Tarabishy conducted one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses on entrepreneurship education in the Unites States, which indicated a growing trend in the number of courses, concentrations, and degrees in the academic fields of small business management and entrepreneurship 4. While previous surveys by Vesper have defined entrepreneurship as business entry, whether by start-up or acquisition and whether independently or within an established organization, the growth of university-level entrepreneurship programs has tended to broaden this viewpoint to include other topics such as family business, managing smaller enterprises, and managing highgrowth businesses 2,5,6,7,8. Considerable study has been done to understand the impact of entrepreneurship in terms of a business education in general 4, 9. However, little literature could be found to analyze the educational impact of an entrepreneurship course and how it affects the entrepreneurial decisions and interest in entrepreneurship of the engineering students who have taken it. Research purpose This research will try to capture the reflection of former engineering students who took a specific entrepreneurship course. This study will try to ascertain whether these engineering students perceive that the course helped them: choose a career; better understand entrepreneurship and new product development; prepared them to pursue entrepreneurship and new product development activities; communicate and interact with entrepreneurs and new product developers; whether all engineering students should be exposed to this material; whether technology in entrepreneurship and new product development should be emphasized for engineering management students; and which areas of entrepreneurship and new product development was most valuable. Page

4 Research methodology The study population considered for this study was the 544 students who had taken the Technical Entrepreneurship course(em320) offered in the University of Missouri-Rolla Engineering Management Department for the past 25 years. addresses were sought for these students to contact them and ask them to participate in this study. The students were reminded and encouraged to participate three times in weekly intervals. In order to validate that the former students who responded to the survey were not significantly different from those who did not respond to the survey, a follow-up study was performed. An with the survey link was again sent to the former students who do not respond initially and a reminder message was sent a week later. All of the non-responding students were contacted a second time using a procedure similar to the first inquiry. Both the original respondents and the follow-up respondents are included in this analysis, since their responses were consistent with the first group. It is possible that the impact to the students has changed over the years. In order to investigate whether this is the case, the students were grouped by the years they enrolled in the course as it evolved over the years. Groups were separated by major changes in the content and structure of the course. Data Collection An online survey is the preferred data collection method for this study because of its low cost, convenience to the respondent, confidentiality and ease of analysis. This approach can identify and avoid duplicates, provide a quick turnaround of data collection, and avoid potential data manipulation errors. A small test sample was used to pilot test to test the survey instrument and procedures. A full survey process was then initiated that includes all the students who had taken the Technical Entrepreneurship course since the winter of Results & Analysis Out of the total population for the study, addresses were found for 234 people. During the fall of 2005, an initial was sent to these prior students in the survey population asking them whether they would consider completing an anonymous survey, if a link to the survey was sent to them and they were able to take the survey online. Of the s sent to the 234 member sample with known addresses, 101 former students originally responded to the survey and then another 21 responded as part of the follow-up process. This represents 52.14% (122/234) of the former students contacted for which we had contact information. This also represents 22.43% (122/544) of the total population. The availability of addresses is not affected by the period in which the students attended, as shown in Table 1. Similarly, the participation rate of the students is also not significantly affected by the period in which they attended, as shown in Table 2. Page

5 Table 1. Availability of Addresses Years Initial sent (A) Total population (B) Percent ( Initial sent/ total population) (A/B) % * 46.15% % % Total % *- The course was not offered in any semester for academic years and Table 2. Survey Respondents by Time Period when they graduated Years Number of students responding (C) Percent of population surveyed who responded (C/A) Percent of students responding of the total population (C/B) % 17.46% % 12.82% % 20.00% % 28.40% Total % 22.43% To gauge the impact of the course on the students, the respondents were asked to provide a direct assessment. Seven multiple choice questions were asked that provide their feedback on the impact of the entrepreneurship course. The study survey contained 34 questions that included five about the former student, eleven about their employment history, four about their future plans and sixteen about the impact of the class. This report focuses on the responses of eight of these questions. The former students were asked to respond to the statement, The techniques learned in the technical entrepreneurship course helped me in the career I chose (question 1). The reply options ranged from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. The mean was , which reflects that they somewhat agree that the course helped them in the career they chose. Figure 1 shows the histogram and normal curve distribution of their responses. Page

6 Figure 1. Helped choose a career (question 1) They were asked to respond to the statement, The material taught in the course helped me better understand entrepreneurship and/or new product development. The reply options ranged from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree (question 2). The mean was 4.32, which reflects that they agree that it helped them understand entrepreneurship and/or new product development better. Figure 2 shows the histogram and normal curve distribution of the responses. Page

7 Figure 2. Helped understand entrepreneurship and new product development (question 2) They were asked to respond to the statement, The technical entrepreneurship course was helpful in providing information and developing skills for pursuing entrepreneurship/intrapreneurship and/or new product development (question 3). The reply options ranged from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. The mean was 4.08, which reflects that they agree that the course helped in building skills. Figure 3 shows the distribution of the responses. Page

8 Figure 3. Developed skills for pursuing entrepreneurship activities (question 3) They were asked to respond to the statement, The tools learned in the course were of assistance to me in communicating and interacting with entrepreneurs/intrapreneurs and/or new product development personnel (question 4). The reply options ranged from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. The mean was 3.83, which reflects that they somewhat agree that the course helped in building skills of communicating. Figure 4 shows the distribution of the responses. Page

9 Figure 4. Helped communicate with entrepreneurs (question 4) They were asked if they agree with the statement All engineering students should be exposed to a course in technical entrepreneurship/ new product development (question 5). The reply options ranged from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. The mean was 4.08, which reflects that they agree that the course was important. Figure 5 shows the distribution of the responses. Page

10 Figure 5. All engineers should be exposed to entrepreneurship concepts (question 5) They were asked to respond to the statement, "How important is it to emphasize "technology" in new product development/ entrepreneurship for engineering management students? The reply options ranged from 5 very important to 1 not important at all. The mean was , which reflects that they agree that technology forms an important facet of the course. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the responses. Page

11 Figure 6. Importance of technology (question6) Table 3 summarizes the results of the agreement questions described in this section. It shows the greatest agreement with the statement that it is important to emphasize technology in new product development/ entrepreneurship for engineering management students. The least agreement was with the assertion that the techniques learned in the course helped them chose their career. The standard deviations are fairly similar, showing a similar level of consensus for the responses. Table 3. Summary of the agreement questions Question Mean Standard Deviation 1- Helped choose a career Helped understand entrepreneurship Developed useful skills Helped communicate Should be required for engineers Importance of technology They were asked what was the most valuable area of entrepreneurship/new product development education. Their responses are shown in Table 4. Page

12 Table 4. The most valuable areas of entrepreneurship class Response Frequency Percent Developing a business plan New product development process Opportunity evaluation New venture process Market development Product development Other or not applicable Total They were also asked to review their industrial career and reply to whether they ever started their own technical business, were a member of a startup team for any other business, or invested in any technical business, but not as a member of the startup since completing the course. Almost half of the students had been involved in one or more of these activities. Table 5 shows the number of percentage of students that became involved in these ways. Table 6 looks at individual student participation and identifies when they were involved in several ways. Table 5. Involvement with entrepreneurship, by type Type of involvement Frequency Percent Started technical business % Member of startup team for other businesses % Invested in technical business, not a member % Table 6. Involvement of individual alumni. Type of involvement Frequency Percent Started technical business only 8 6.6% Member of startup team for others only % Invested in technical business, only % Started technical business and member of team % Member of startup team and invested 5 4.1% All three 5 4.1% Total involved % Total population % Page

13 Summary The research suggests that the former students that took this entrepreneurial class perceived it did have a positive impact on them. They perceived it affected their decision regarding the career choice they made. It also helped them understand the basic concepts related to new product development/entrepreneurship in general. If they decide to start some entrepreneurial activity, it helped them learn the basic skills necessary to initiate their venture. At least it helped them understanding the underlying concepts while interacting with entrepreneurs. It emphasized the technology aspect in any entrepreneurial activity. Limitations of the research For this study, the survey population consisted of all the former students who took the technical entrepreneurship course at UMR Engineering Management Department. The findings may be different for the same entrepreneurship course offered in a different department at UMR or another engineering school. This study was limited to the students of one entrepreneurship course taught by one instructor in a particular format at the University of Missouri-Rolla Engineering Management Department. The results may be different for a single entrepreneurship course taught by a different instructor or in a different format. The results could also be different for students with an engineering background who took more than one entrepreneurship course at UMR or at a different school. This study only reports the perceptions of the student population that has taken the UMR entrepreneurship course. Since there was no survey of a comparative population, any conclusions are limited to those perceptions. References: 1. Kuratko, D.F. and Hodgetts, R.M. (2004). Entrepreneurship: Theory, process, practice (Mason,OH; South- Western Publishers). 2. Vesper, Karl.H. and Gartner, William.B.(1997). Measuring progress in entrepreneurship education, Journal of business venturing, Vol. 12, pp Katz, J.A. (2003). The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship education , Journal of business venturing, Vol. 18, pp Solomon, G.T., Duffy, S. and Tarabishy, A. (2002). The state of entrepreneurship education in the United States: A nationwide survey and analysis. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, Vol. 1, pp Vesper, K.H. (1980). Entrepreneurship education 1980.Wellesley, MA. Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies. 6. Vesper, K.H. (1985) Entrepreneurship education Wellesley, MA Babson College Center for Entrepreneurial Studies. 7. Vesper, K.H. and McMullan, W.E. (1988). Entrepreneurship: Today courses, tomorrow degrees? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 13(1): Vesper, K.H. (1993). Entrepreneurship education Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for Entrepreneurial Studies. Page

14 9. Winslow, E. K., Solomon, G. T. and Tarabishy, A. (1999). Empirical investigation into entrepreneurship education in the United States: Some results of the 1997 national survey of entrepreneurial education United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship (USASBE) annual national conference proceedings Page