Description
Student Impact Of An Entrepreneurship Course
AC 2007-1474: 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 2006.
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
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 non-
engineering 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
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 high-
growth 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.
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. Email 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 email 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 1980.
Results & Analysis Out of the total population for the study, email addresses were found for 234
people. During the fall of 2005, an initial email 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 emails 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 email 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.
Table 1. Availability of Email Addresses
Years
Initial email sent
(A)
Total population
(B)
Percent
( Initial email sent/ total
population)
(A/B)
1980-1986 61 149 40.94%
1987-1992 18 39* 46.15%
1993-1998 50 120 41.67%
1999-2004 105 236 44.49%
Total 234 544 43.01%
*- The course was not offered in any semester for academic years 1988-89 and 1989-90.
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)
1980-1986 26 42.63% 17.46%
1987-1992 5 27.78% 12.82%
1993-1998 24 48.00% 20.00%
1999-2004 67 63.81% 28.40%
Total 122 52.14% 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 3.5556, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 4.2871, which
reflects that they agree that “technology” forms an important facet of the course. Figure 6 shows
the distribution of the responses.
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 3.56 0.98
2- Helped understand entrepreneurship 4.32 0.65
3- Developed useful skills 4.08 0.77
4- Helped communicate 3.83 0.88
5- Should be required for engineers 4.08 0.98
6- Importance of “technology” 4.29 0.85
They were asked what was the most valuable area of entrepreneurship/new product development
education. Their responses are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. The most valuable areas of entrepreneurship class
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 20 16.4%
Member of startup team for
other businesses
33 27.0%
Invested in technical
business, not a member
21 17.2%
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
16 13.1%
Invested in technical
business, only
11 9.0%
Started technical business
and member of team
12 9.8%
Member of startup team and
invested
5 4.1%
All three 5 4.1%
Total involved 57 46.7%
Total population 122 100%
Response Frequency Percent
Developing a business plan 44 36.1
New product development process 29 23.8
Opportunity evaluation 28 23.0
New venture process 9 7.4
Market development 4 3.3
Product development 3 2.5
Other or not applicable 5 3.9
Total 122 100.0
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.403-421.
3. Katz, J.A. (2003). “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American
entrepreneurship education 1876-1999,” Journal of business venturing, Vol. 18, pp.283-
300.
4. 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. 65-86.
5. Vesper, K.H. (1980). Entrepreneurship education 1980.Wellesley, MA. Babson College Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies.
6. Vesper, K.H. (1985) Entrepreneurship education 1985. 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): 7-13.
8. Vesper, K.H. (1993). Entrepreneurship education 1993. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles,
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
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
doc_836653075.pdf
Student Impact Of An Entrepreneurship Course
AC 2007-1474: 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 2006.
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
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 non-
engineering 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
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 high-
growth 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.
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. Email 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 email 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 1980.
Results & Analysis Out of the total population for the study, email addresses were found for 234
people. During the fall of 2005, an initial email 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 emails 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 email 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.
Table 1. Availability of Email Addresses
Years
Initial email sent
(A)
Total population
(B)
Percent
( Initial email sent/ total
population)
(A/B)
1980-1986 61 149 40.94%
1987-1992 18 39* 46.15%
1993-1998 50 120 41.67%
1999-2004 105 236 44.49%
Total 234 544 43.01%
*- The course was not offered in any semester for academic years 1988-89 and 1989-90.
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)
1980-1986 26 42.63% 17.46%
1987-1992 5 27.78% 12.82%
1993-1998 24 48.00% 20.00%
1999-2004 67 63.81% 28.40%
Total 122 52.14% 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 3.5556, 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 4.2871, which
reflects that they agree that “technology” forms an important facet of the course. Figure 6 shows
the distribution of the responses.
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 3.56 0.98
2- Helped understand entrepreneurship 4.32 0.65
3- Developed useful skills 4.08 0.77
4- Helped communicate 3.83 0.88
5- Should be required for engineers 4.08 0.98
6- Importance of “technology” 4.29 0.85
They were asked what was the most valuable area of entrepreneurship/new product development
education. Their responses are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. The most valuable areas of entrepreneurship class
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 20 16.4%
Member of startup team for
other businesses
33 27.0%
Invested in technical
business, not a member
21 17.2%
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
16 13.1%
Invested in technical
business, only
11 9.0%
Started technical business
and member of team
12 9.8%
Member of startup team and
invested
5 4.1%
All three 5 4.1%
Total involved 57 46.7%
Total population 122 100%
Response Frequency Percent
Developing a business plan 44 36.1
New product development process 29 23.8
Opportunity evaluation 28 23.0
New venture process 9 7.4
Market development 4 3.3
Product development 3 2.5
Other or not applicable 5 3.9
Total 122 100.0
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.403-421.
3. Katz, J.A. (2003). “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American
entrepreneurship education 1876-1999,” Journal of business venturing, Vol. 18, pp.283-
300.
4. 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. 65-86.
5. Vesper, K.H. (1980). Entrepreneurship education 1980.Wellesley, MA. Babson College Center for
Entrepreneurial Studies.
6. Vesper, K.H. (1985) Entrepreneurship education 1985. 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): 7-13.
8. Vesper, K.H. (1993). Entrepreneurship education 1993. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles,
Center for Entrepreneurial Studies.
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
doc_836653075.pdf