Work in Progress: a Conceptual Design Project for Civil Engineering Freshmen to Enhance Their Entrepreneurial Mindset

Paper ID #34977

Work in Progress: A Conceptual Design Project for Civil Engineering Freshmen to Enhance Their Entrepreneurial Mindset

Dr. J. Chris Carroll, Saint Louis University Dr. Carroll is an Associate Professor and the Civil Engineering Program Coordinator in Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology at Saint Louis University. His experimental research interests focus on reinforced and prestressed concrete, while his engineering education research interests focus on experiential learning at both the university and K-12 levels. Dr. Carroll is also the chair of the American Concrete Institute’s Committee S802 - Teaching Methods and Educational Materials. Ms. Kelsey Z. Musa, Saint Louis University Kelsey Musa is a Civil Engineering student currently pursuing the MS Program in Engineering at Saint Louis University with a focus on Structural Engineering. Her experience in engineering education ranges from developing STEM related modules to moderating STEM camp activities for K-12 students. She aspires to practice engineering professionally in addition to pursuing future engineering education en- deavours and continuously encouraging students to pursue careers in STEM. Dr. Shannon M. Sipes, Indiana University, Bloomington Shannon Sipes serves as an instructional consultant providing professional development and individual consultations to faculty on areas related to their own teaching and to student learning. Prior to her current role, she has applied her interests in a STEM learning environment and taught a variety of psychology courses to both undergraduate and graduate students in face-to-face, hybrid, and online formats. Shannon earned a BS in psychology, a MA in experimental psychology, and a Ph.D. in curriculum & instruction with a focus in higher education. Dr. Scott A. Sell, Saint Louis University Scott A. Sell, Ph.D. is currently an Associate Professor and the Biomedical Engineering Program Coor- dinator in Parks College of Engineering, Aviation, and Technology at Saint Louis University. Prior to joining SLU in August of 2012, Dr. Sell received his education from Virginia Commonwealth University (BS in BME ’03; MS in BME ’06; and Ph.D. in BME in ’09), and spent three years conducting clinical tissue engineering research as a Polytrauma Research Fellow at the Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center in Richmond, VA. Dr. Sell’s Tissue Engineering Scaffold Fabrication Lab focuses on the fabrication and evaluation of tissue engineering scaffolds capable of replicating both the form and function of the native extracellular matrix (ECM). Of principal interest is the fabrication of scaffolds capable of promoting wound healing and the ﬁlling of large tissue defects, as well as orthopaedic applications such as bone and intervertebral disc repair. Dr. Sell is also heavily interested in engineering and entrepreneur- ship education; having worked closely with both the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) and the Coleman Foundation, and been selected to participate in the National Academy of Engineering’s Frontiers of Engineering Education Symposium in 2016. Dr. Sell has over 85 peer reviewed publications, over 195 conference abstracts, and 5500+ citations of his work. He has also been the recipient of several prestigious awards during his time at SLU: the Association of Parks College Students Outstanding Faculty of the Year Award, Saint Louis University’s Junior Faculty Grantwinner Award for Excellence in Research, the Outstanding Graduate Faculty Award for Parks College, and Saint Louis University’s Outstanding Faculty Mentorship Award. Dr. Michelle B. Sabick, Saint Louis University Dr. Michelle Sabick assumed the role of Dean of Parks College of Engineering, Aviation and Technology at Saint Louis University in July of 2016. Prior to that she was Chair of the Department of Biomedical Engineering at Saint Louis University. Dr. Sabick began her academic career at Boise State University in Boise, Idaho where she co-founded the Center for Orthopaedic and Biomechanics Research and served as Chair of the Department of Mechanical and Biomedical Engineering for three years.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 Paper ID #34977

Sabick earned a BS degree in Biomedical Engineering from Case Western Reserve University and MS and PhD degrees in Biomedical Engineering from the University of Iowa. Before moving to academia, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Orthopedics at the Mayo Clinic and worked as a biomechanics researcher at the Steadman-Hawkins Sports Medicine Foundation in Vail, CO. Dr. Sabick’s research areas are orthopedic biomechanics and sports medicine. Her primary focus is on how highly ballistic human movements affect the joints of the upper extremity. She is the President-Elect of the American Society of Biomechanics and the co-chair of the Saint Louis University Science and Engineering Task Force. Throughout her career, Sabick has been passionate about improving undergraduate engineering education. She has been highly involved in efforts to transform STEM teaching practices at both Saint Louis Univer- sity and Boise State, where she helped mentor faculty members to infuse courses with more interactive and hands-on learning experiences. She is currently working on a Boeing-funded project to infuse more math content into the middle school curriculum in the St. Louis Public School System.

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2021 A Conceptual Design Project for Civil Engineering Freshmen to Enhance Their Entrepreneurial Mindset

Introduction

In a 1972 article entitled, “Mickey Mouse for Mayor!” [1] Peter Blake said, “…it is Walt Disney Productions, and not our innumerable U.S city planning agencies and experts, that has really created the first, great, vibrant New Towns in America.” Walt Disney Imagineering, which is responsible for the design and construction of Disney projects, seems to understand the design process better than most. One might say they are particularly entrepreneurial in their mindset and approach. They exhibit curiosity and creativity; they connect various disciplines to accomplish major tasks; and they undoubtedly create value with nearly every project they produce. In fact, their approaches and techniques can be used successfully for more than just new theme parks, in fact, much, much more than new theme parks. Teaching the design process to engineering students is not an easy task and teaching it to first-year engineering students can be an even more challenging task and sometimes requires a bit more creativity to make it stick.

This paper provides an overview of an inaugural freshmen design project implemented in the fall of 2020 at Saint Louis University (SLU). Students were assigned a group project that required them to produce a conceptual theme park and resort design at one of four abandoned sites across the United States. Students learned about the engineering design process, how to use SketchUp, and how to effectively present an idea. The overall goal was to make it more like a real-world project, while enhancing the students’ entrepreneurial mindset. The students in the course took an entrepreneurial mindset survey before and after the project and provided responses to a series of open-ended questions. In addition to the project overview, this paper also presents the results of the pre- and post-surveys and a summary of the open-ended responses along with some lessons learned and future plans.

Background

Entrepreneurial Mindset

The American Society of Civil Engineers’ third edition of its Body of Knowledge (BOK3) [2] includes Professional Attitudes in both the Cognitive and Affective Domain. The BOK3 expects students to reach Level 2—Comprehend in the cognitive domain by being able to “Explain professional attitudes relevant to the practice of civil engineering, including creativity, curiosity, flexibility, and dependability.” Likewise, the BOK3 also expects students to reach Level 2—Respond in the affective domain by being able to “Practice professional attitudes relevant to the practice of civil engineering, including creativity, curiosity, flexibility, and dependability. The BOK3 also mentions innovation.

The Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN) published the KEEN Framework: A Guide for Entrepreneurial Mindset [3] to help faculty, students, and industry understand their wholistic view. The Framework combines entrepreneurial mindset and engineering skillset to accomplish educational outcomes. The entrepreneurial mindset is based upon the 3C’s: Curiosity, Connections, and Creating Value, and the engineering skillset includes

three categories: opportunity, design, and impact. The skills included within the opportunity category are identify an opportunity, investigate the market, create a preliminary business model, evaluate technical feasibility, customer value, societal benefits, and economic viability, test concepts quickly via customer engagement, and assess policy and regulatory issues. The skills included within the design category include determine design requirements, perform technical design, analyze solutions, develop new technologies, create a model or prototype, and validate functions. The skills included within the impact category are communicate an engineering solution in economic terms, communicate an engineering solution in terms of societal benefits, validate market interest, develop partnerships and build a team, identify supply chains and distribution methods, and protect intellectual property.

Experiential Learning and Constructionism

Experiential learning is a learning activity that promotes intellectual, emotional, sensual, and physical engagement [4-7]. Kolb [8] provided detailed analysis on the process of experiential learning where he noted that the process of learning is as important as the content, and physical interaction with real-world situations leads to deeper understanding when proper observational and reflection techniques are used. A widely used application of Kolb’s work is to use learning cycles where the students interact with content in both physical and abstract ways, successively completing 1) a concrete experience, 2) reflective observation, 3) abstract conceptualization, and 4) active experimentation [9]. One of the most common methods is to use an actual project, where students must produce a final artifact, regardless of whether it takes the form of something physical or virtual. The advantages of physical artifacts are rooted in constructionism, which says that physically building something will trigger new thoughts and creativity, creating new knowledge that may otherwise lay dormant and unused [10].

Project Significance

This project aligns well with ASCE’s BOK3 along with the KEEN Framework. It provides students with the chance to cycle through the engineering skillset and experiential learning cycle all while having the opportunity to trigger new thoughts and creativity in route to unlocking new knowledge by building physical and virtual models to present their ideas.

Introduction to Civil Engineering

The introduction to civil engineering course at SLU is currently a one credit-hour course that meets once a week for one hour and 50 minutes. Past offerings of the course included an introduction to the design process and two-week sessions about five of the six sub-disciplines within civil engineering: environmental, geotechnical, structural, transportation, and water resources. Each of the two-week sessions featured an introduction to a sub-discipline followed by an activity and/or small project. Students also completed a small research project on a historical civil engineering project. The course was restructured in the fall of 2020 to include more content focused on oral communication skills and a more in-depth design project. The revised content schedule included 1) one week for an introduction to civil engineering, 2) one week on the engineering design process (and Imagineering Process), 3) six weeks of introductions to the civil engineering sub-disciplines, 4) one week for individual project

presentations, 5) one week for the introduction to SketchUp, and 6) five weeks devoted to the conceptual design project. In addition to the weekly class meetings, students were assigned to read two or three chapters of The Imagineering Pyramid [11] and complete a short quiz. The typical quiz simply asked students to match definitions and describe how they could use particular principles and techniques in their presentations.

The Imagineering Pyramid

The Imagineering Pyramid by Prosperi [11] provides an excellent overview of the principles, techniques, and practices used by Walt Disney Imagineering. The pyramid is broken down into five categories that Prosperi shows as tiers. Tier 1 is “Foundations of Imagineering,” which includes five blocks; Tier 2 is “Wayfinding,” which includes four blocks; Tier 3 is “Visual Communication,” which includes three blocks; Tier 4 is “Making in Memorable,” which includes two blocks; and Tier 5 is “Plussing,” which stands alone as a single block atop the pyramid. Table 1 lists each tier along with corresponding blocks and their descriptions. The Imagineering principles, techniques, and practices apply to a wide range of projects, but one particularly useful application is for oral presentations. Using many of the principles and techniques described in the blocks can help students stay focused on their objective, organize their content better, simplify complex subjects, and continuously improve their presentation, just to name a few.

Table 1—The Imagineering Pyramid breakdown [11]

Tier Block Description It All Begins with a Story Using your subject matter to inform all decisions about your project Creative Intent Staying focused on your objective 1 Attention to Detail Paying attention to every detail Theming Using appropriate details to strengthen your story and support your creative intent Long, Medium, and Close Organizing your message to lead your audience from Shots the general to the specific Wienies Attracting your audience’s attention and capturing their interest Transitions Making changes as smooth and seamless as possible 2 Storyboards Focusing on the big picture Pre-Shows and Post-Shows Introducing and reinforcing your story to help your audience get and stay engaged Forced Perspective Using the illusion of size to help communicate your message 3 “Read”-ability Simplifying complex subjects Kinetics Keep the experience dynamic and active The “it’s a small world” Effect Using repetition and reinforcement to make your 4 audience’s experience and your message memorable Hidden Mickeys Involving and engaging your audience 5 Plussing Consistently asking, “How do I make this better?”

The Imagineering Process

The engineering design process varies from the simple five step process to the most detailed version that includes up to 12 steps. The five steps of the most basic version of the engineering design process are 1) Ask, 2) Imagine, 3) Plan, 4) Create, and 5) Improve, while the more detailed versions include many more smaller steps. In most cases, the visual representation of the engineering design process is circular to illustrate iteration. The Imagineering Process, on the other hand, is not shown to be circular and includes seven specific steps as defined by Prosperi [12]: 1) Prologue: (Needs, Requirement, and Constraints, 2) Blue Sky, 3) Concept Development, 4) Design, 5) Construction, 6) Models, and 7) Epilogue: Openings, Evaluations, and Show Quality Standards. Figure 1 shows the general flow diagram for the Imagineering Process.

Fig. 1—Imagineering Process flow diagram [12]

The Prologue is broken down into needs, requirements, and constraints. Prosperi [12] defines the need as “the problem you’re trying to solve,” the requirements as “things you must do,” and the constraints as “things you can’t do.” Even through capstone design courses, students struggle with needs, requirements, and constraints and these simple definitions clear up misunderstandings between the three. The Blue Sky stage should produce your vision for the project “with enough detail to be able to explain, present, and sell it to others.” Similarly, the Concept Development stage should result in a more detailed description of your project’s vision to explain what needs to be designed and built. The Design stage is very similar to that seen in a capstone design course. It includes drawings, diagrams, and other documents along with 30, 60, and 90% milestones. The ultimate goal is to “develop plans and documents that describe and explain how your vision will be brought to life.” The Construction stage is pretty self- explanatory: build the project based on the specified designs. Most civil engineering projects are too large in scale to allow for prototypes, thus civil engineers rely heavily upon CAD models. Prosperi notes that the goal of creating models is, “to test and validate your design… and prevent

problems that may arise during design and construction.” The last section of the Imagineering Process is the Epilogue: Openings, Evaluations, and Show Quality Standards. The concept behind the Epilogue is to simply present your project and allow your customer(s) to experience it and evaluate how well you met the original needs, requirements, and constraints. While civil engineering projects rarely provide an opportunity to make changes after the fact, the lessons learned in this stage could be applied to future projects.

Prosperi presents various applications of the Imagineering Process throughout the book. In every case, the process will almost always be somewhat different. In Ch. 11, Another View of the Imagineering Process, Prosperi discusses the flexibility, scalability, and adaptability of the process. In particular, he highlights the instances where different steps may in fact merge or overlap with each other. For example, the Blue Sky stage may merge with Concept Development, or in the case of a design-build project many times seen in civil engineering, the design and construction stages may merge together. This provides some great scenarios that show students the engineering (in this case the Imagineering) process is not a one-size fits all approach.

Civil Engineering Sub-disciplines and Individual Presentations

Over the course of six weeks, one class period focused on each of the six civil engineering sub-disciplines: construction, environmental, geotechnical, structural, transportation, and water resources engineering. During these classes students were introduced to each sub- discipline with a lecture and/or short activity presented by the faculty member with that expertise. Some example activities include a scavenger hunt around campus to locate various types of water features and constructing and load testing a K’nex tower. In addition to sub- discipline introductions, the instructor also provided brief overviews of 20 of the most impressive civil engineering projects completed within the past 20 years. Students completed a Google form indicating their top five choices for which projects they would like to research and present on. The instructor assigned one project to each student based on their preferences. There were three primary deliverables related to the presentations: 1) create a video version of the presentation, 2) complete a peer review of three video presentations, and 3) revise and present their presentations in class. The purpose of the individual presentations was to reinforce the content associated with the sub-disciplines and apply the techniques learned from the Imagineering Pyramid. It is also worth noting, that some of the selected projects were used to foreshadow the final projects, which remained a secret until later in the semester.

SketchUp Tutorial

SketchUp (formerly Google SketchUp) is one of the more user-friendly CAD programs for beginners. It is more intuitive than many of the more complex software programs available; it works on both PC and Mac computers; and enough features can be introduced within one or two class periods to make students proficient enough to complete certain tasks. The instructor purchased individual licenses of SketchUp Pro for each of the 15 students enrolled in the course ($55/student). This was especially useful so students could work remotely outside of class during the fall semester of 2020 amid social distancing requirements. One class period was devoted to a SketchUp tutorial focused on four specific tasks: 1) importing a geo-location, 2)

importing existing model structures (if available), 3) creating a basic structure model, and 4) placing a model within an imported geo-location and adjusting for terrain differences. In addition to the in-class tutorial, students also received a document with step-by-step instructions and the in-class tutorial was recorded via Zoom so the students could re-watch later. Fig. 2 shows two screen captures from the tutorial.

(a) (b) Fig. 2—(a) Importing a geo-location and (b) placing a finished model within the imported geo- location (existing, imported SketchUp models in the background).

Design Project

The instructor presented four hypothetical design project sites to the class after the SketchUp tutorial, each of which had very distinct requirements and constraints different from each other. The instructor researched several abandoned sites and “ghost towns” across the United States, ultimately selecting four for use in the course. Those four were a ghost town located in Bannack, Montana, an abandoned amusement park in Maggie Valley, North Carolina, the Dry Tortugas west of Key West, Florida, and the Carrie Furnace in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Listed below are the project descriptions given to the students.

Bannack Ghost Town and Ranch Expedition Bannack is a ghost town located in southwest Montana, home of the state’s first major gold discovery in 1862. The site is currently a state park and National Historic Landmark, but decreasing numbers of visitors in recent years has left the future of the park and town in doubt. A group of investors have purchased the town and a large level plot of land northwest of the site. The park is only open from Memorial Day through Labor Day, but the investors hope to redevelop the site and keep it open throughout the year. The overall area (295 ac) is divided by the main access road. The area east of the access road (100 ac) includes the ghost town and the area west of the access road (195 ac) is open land ideal for a wildlife refuge. The town still has over 50 original buildings lining its Main Street and Grasshopper Creek meanders through land surrounded by rolling hills. The objective of the project is to create a destination resort and theme park focused on the Montanan culture including cowboys, the gold rush, wildlife, and fossils that utilizes the existing structures of the Bannack Ghost Town.

Carolina Mountain Top Adventure Ghost Town Village (formerly known as Ghost Town in the Sky) is an abandoned, Wild West-themed amusement park that sits atop Buck Mountain in Maggie Valley, North Carolina. The park first opened in 1961 and at its peak, drew over 600,000 people per year. However,

changes in ownership, mismanagement, and lack of maintenance ultimately led to its demise and eventual closure in 2002. The property has great potential and new investors are hopeful a complete overhaul will revitalize the once popular western North Carolina tourist attraction. The purchased property (119 ac) is majority mountain-side terrain, with only 20% of the property usable in its current state. Thus, the property will require creative solutions to utilize the remainder of the site that will allow visitors to easily navigate the new development. Mudslides have occurred in the past as a result of failed retaining wall designs, so geotechnical challenges are expected. The investors hope to utilize at least 60% of the property for the new development. The objective of the project is to create a luxury mountain-top resort and theme park that tastefully blends Smoky Mountain culture with the atmosphere of a European Village similar to the nearby Biltmore Village in Asheville, NC.

Dry Tortugas Spanish Conquest The Dry Tortugas National Park lies 70 miles due west of Key West, Florida and consists of seven small islands. The islands were first discovered by Spanish explorer, Juan Ponce de Leon in 1513, who first named the islands Las Tortugas after the abundance of sea turtles present at the time. The National Parks Service (NPS) currently manages the islands but the cost to maintain the park has risen substantially in recent years resulting in the sale of the islands to private investors. Garden Key (home to Fort Jefferson), Bush Key, and Long Key are connected (44 ac). Loggerhead Key (46 ac) sits by itself about 3 miles further west and is home to the Loggerhead Lighthouse. The remaining three islands sit about one mile north of Garden Key. Although they are too small for major use, they could be used for other complimentary activities. A land mass (49 ac) covered by shallow water sits about a half mile south of Garden Key that could be raised above sea level to create a substantial area. The objective of the project is to create a destination resort and theme park with a Spanish adventure and Pirate motif that incorporates the existing structures, and both preserves and utilizes the natural coral reef.

Industrial Revolution Experience The Carrie Furnace near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is a lasting relic of the Second Industrial Revolution and the once massive US steel industry. The site was built in 1881 and operated nearly 100 years until 1978, producing up to 1,250 tons of steel per day. Unfortunately, the furnace fell victim to the Steel Crisis of the 1970s and 1980s when US steel production decreased significantly. Since, the site has been sold twice to various entities and has remained underutilized for decades. The Carrie Furnace site (112 ac) sits about 12 miles east of downtown Pittsburgh along the north bank of the Monogahela River and includes two key features. First, the remnants of furnaces 6 and 7 still stand tall on the site, both of which are now designated National Historic Landmarks. Second, an old railroad bridge spans the Monogahela River and could be utilized for site access or incorporated as a new feature of the site’s renovation. The objective of the project is to create a theme park and educational experience focused on the Second Industrial Revolution that incorporates the existing Carrie Furnace structures and its rustic atmosphere.

In addition to the project overviews and objectives, the students also received a variety of requirements and constraints specific to the hypothetical sites. Some examples include the desired number of patrons on site at one time, the percentage of land that could be used for

attractions, accommodations, utilities, parking, landscaping, etc., and any requirements for maintaining existing features. While each site had different requirements and constraints, the deliverables were the same for each group as listed below:

1. “Blue Sky” Summary (10 %) – Due November 1st 2. Concept Summary (10%) – Due November 8th 3. Full Concept LEGO Model, 1 in. = 64 ft scale (10%) – Due November 9th 4. Draft Final Concept Sketchup File (10%) – Due November 15th 5. Detailed LEGO Attraction Model, 1 in. = 32 ft scale (10%) – Due November 16th 6. Final PowerPoint Presentation (10%) – Due November 22nd 7. Final Sketchup Files (20%) – Due November 22nd 8. Final Project Presentations – November 23rd

Prior to the project assignments, the students were asked to complete a preliminary survey modeled after the CATME team maker survey with additional questions related to the project options.

1. Which sub-discipline of civil engineering are you most interested in? 2. Which other sub-discipline of civil engineering are you most interested in? 3. Rank the four projects in order of your preference to work on from first to fourth. 4. How would you rate your previous experience with SketchUp? (0-5) 5. How would you rate your interest in art / architecture? (0-5) 6. What is your preferred leadership role? 7. Please select the statement [related to being a visionary versus being detailed oriented] you most closely identify with. 8. Select the time that you are available outside of class in a typical week.

The results of the survey were used to create four teams such that each team had diversity among civil engineering sub-discipline of interest, leadership preference, and visionary level as shown in Table 1. Availability outside of class was also taken into consideration, but is not reflected in the Table.

Table 2—Team diversity breakdown

Dry Tortugas Industrial Revolution Bannack Ghost Town Carolina Adventure Structural (L) (B) Transportation (L) (V) Environmental (L) (V) Construction (F) (B) Environmental (B) (V) Structures (B) (B) Construction (B) (B) Structural (B) (B) Structural (F) (D) Structures (B) (B) Structural (B) (D) Structural (F) (D) Transportation (B) (D) Structural (B) (B) Environmental (F) (B) First () L – prefer leading, B – balanced, F – prefer following Second () V – visionary, B – balanced, D – detail oriented

The teams were given one day of class time for the Blue Sky stage, one day of class time for the Concept Development Stage, and two days of class time for SketchUp modeling. The fifth day of class time was used for the final presentations. During the Blue Sky stages, teams worked through the brainstorming process using Post-it notes and Sharpies, LEGOs, too if they chose to incorporate them early on. Fig. 3 (a) shows a section of one group’s site map during the Blue Sky stage. During the Concept Development stages, the groups used LEGOs to generate

physical, scale models of their site (1 in. = 64 ft, 1 LEGO peg = 20 ft). After developing a full site model, each group selected one attraction and built a larger, scale model of that attraction (1 in. 32 ft, 1 LEGO peg = 10 ft). Fig. 3 (b) shows the larger, scale model of a single attraction for a second group. The green panels on top represent solar panels. Lastly, each group created SketchUp files of their site including importing map data. Fig. 3 (c) shows the final model resulting from the Blue Sky stages shown in Fig. 3 (a). The group imported an existing model of Fort Jefferson and added a retractable glass canopy on top. Each group was also required to create a more detailed SketchUp model of the same attraction they selected for their larger, scale LEGO model. Fig. 3 (d) shows the final SketchUp file of the larger scale LEGO model shown in Fig. 3 (b). The students created an interactive museum that incorporated the existing Carrie Furnace structures that still remain on-site.

(a) (b)

(c) (d) Fig. 3—(a) Blue Sky brainstorming results; (b) detailed large-scale LEGO model; (c) final Sketchup site model; and (d) final SketchUp detailed attraction model.

Methodology

ESEMA Instrument

The Engineering Student Entrepreneurial Mindset Assessment (ESEMA) instrument measures a students’ entrepreneurial mindset (EM) through a self-reported survey based on the 3 Cs of the KEEN Framework [13]. The instrument includes 34 questions broken down into seven factors: 1) Ideation, 2) Open-Mindedness, 3) Interest, 4) Altruism, 5) Empathy, 6) Help-Seeking,

and 7) Unnamed. Ideation (Id) measures enjoyment in generating ideas, challenging the norm, persistence; Open-Mindedness (OM) measures an individual’s appreciation and willingness to work with others; Interest (In) simply measures student interest; Altruism (Al) measures a student’s desire to positively contribute to the world; Empathy (E) measures a student’s appreciation of others’ perspectives and viewpoints; and Help Seeking (HS) measures a student’s willingness to seek out help when necessary. A seventh factor, Unnamed (U), included other items that did not fit within a specific construct.

Table 3—Engineering Student Entrepreneurial Mindset Assessment Items [13]

Factor 1: Ideation (Id) 1. I like to reimagine existing ideas 2. I like to think about ways to improve accepted solutions 3. I typically develop new ideas by improving existing solutions 4. I like to think of wild and crazy ideas 5. I tend to challenge things that are done by the book 6. Other people tell me I am good at thinking outside the box 7. I prefer to challenge adopted solutions rather than blindly accept them 8. I tend to see my ideas through even if there are setbacks 9. I look for new things to learn when I am bored Factor 2: Open-Mindedness (OM) 10. I am willing to consider an idea put forth by someone with a different background than my own 11. I am willing to compromise if another idea seems better than my own 12. I appreciate the value that different kinds of knowledge can bring to a project 13. I appreciate the value that individuals with different strengths bring to a team 14. I recognize that people with different backgrounds from my own might have better ideas than I do 15. I am willing to learn from others who have different areas of expertise 16. I recognize the importance of other fields even if I don’t know much about them 17. I am willing to update my plans in response to new information Factor 3: Interest (In) 18. I tend to get involved in a variety of activities 19. I enjoy being involved in a variety of activities 20. I participate in a wide range of hobbies Factor 4: Altruism (Al) 21. The idea of tackling society’s biggest problems does not motivate me (reverse scored) 22. I believe it is important that I do things that fix problems in the world 23. I am driven to do things that improve the lives of others Factor 5: Empathy (E) 24. I can easily tune into how someone else feels 25. Other people tell me I am good at understanding their feelings Factor 6: Help Seeking (HS) 26. I know when I need to ask for help 27. I am comfortable asking others for help Factor 7: Unnamed (U) 28. I prefer what I am used to rather than what is unfamiliar (reverse scored) 29. I would rather work with what is familiar than what is unfamiliar (reverse scored) 30. I am less likely to change directions on a project after putting forth a lot of effort (reverse scored) 31. I tend to resist change (reverse scored) 32. I like to work on problems that have clear solutions (reverse scored) 33. I prefer tasks that are well-defined (reverse scored) 34. I tend not to do something when I am unsure of the outcome (reverse scored)

Open-ended Questions

The students were asked 11 open-ended questions on the post-survey to gain more insight regarding their experience with the project with respect to the design process, communication, teamwork, the 3Cs, the use of LEGOs, enjoyment of the project, and suggestions for improvement. Those questions are listed below:

1. What is the most important thing you learned about the design process during the design project in CVNG 1010? 2. What is the most important thing you learned about communication during the design project in CVNG 1010? 3. What is the most important thing you learned about teamwork during the design project in CVNG 1010? 4. Explain how your curiosity influenced your ability to explore multiple perspectives during the design project. 5. Explain how you connected information from various sources and how you integrated that information into your design project. 6. Explain what societal value would be created if your conceptual design was physically constructed? 7. Describe any "failures" you experienced during the design process (i.e. did you have any setbacks), how you persisted through that failure, and what you learned from that failure. 8. Describe how the use of LEGOs and scale maps DID or DID NOT help you to visualize your project and transfer your ideas to SketchUp. 9. What did you enjoy most about the design project in CVNG 1010? 10. What did you enjoy least about the design project in CVNG 1010? 11. What could be changed about the project to improve it for next year?

Results

There were 15 students in the course. All 15 students completed the pre-survey, but only 14 (5 males and 9 females) completed the post-survey for a response rate of 93.3%. The ESEMA survey was analyzed as noted by Brunhaver et al. [13] and the open-ended questions were summarized based on three categories. The following sections provide detailed discussion of the results.

ESEMA Survey

Likert scales were coded from 1-5 for data analysis and divided into seven factors as noted by Brunhaver et al. [13]. The categories included Ideation (Id), Open-Mindedness (OM), Interest (In), Altruism (Al), Empathy (E), Help Seeking (HS), and Unnamed (U) as previously described, which included 9, 8, 3, 3, 2, 2, and 7 questions, respectively. The mean, standard deviation, median, and mode were calculated for each factor and all factors combined. Additionally, a paired t-test was completed on the data. Table 4 shows a summary of the results. All but one factor had an increase in mean score. Ideation increased by 2.35 points; Open- Mindedness only increased by 0.79 points; Interest only increased by 0.43 points; Altruism

remained the same; Empathy increased by 0.43 points; Help Seeking increased by 1.07 points; and the Unnamed factor only increased by 0.29 points. The modes also increased for Ideation from 3 to 4 and Empathy from 4 to 5. All other modes did not change. Although each factor saw an increase in mean score, only Ideation and Help Seeking saw statistically significant differences. A paired t-test resulted in p-values of 0.048 and 0.029 for Ideation and Help Seeking, respectively, indicating a statistically significant difference between the mean values. Other factors had p-values > 0.05 indicating no significant difference in mean values. It is worth noting, that the overall mean also saw a statistically significant increase between the pre- and post-surveys. The mean increased by 5.36 points, and the median increased by 4 points.

Table 4—Descriptive statistics of pre- and post-test ESEMA surveys

Pre-survey Post-survey Paired t-test St. St. Stat. Factor Mean Dev. Median Mode Mean Dev. Median Mode p-value Sig. Id 29.36 7.03 31 3 31.71 7.48 33.5 4 0.048 Yes OM 36.21 4.59 38 5 37.00 2.86 38 5 0.280 No In 10.36 3.52 11.5 4 10.79 3.42 11 4 0.272 No Al 10.50 1.29 10 5 10.50 1.09 11 5 1.000 No E 7.07 2.40 8 4 7.50 2.50 8 5 0.234 No HS 6.00 2.32 6 4 7.07 2.09 8 4 0.029 Yes U 18.71 3.56 18 4 19.00 4.90 17.5 4 0.781 No Total 118.21 16.17 119 123.57 15.88 123 0.022 Yes

Open-ended Questions

Key Takeaways: Students felt the most important thing learned was the importance of exploring as many ideas as possible during the design process. The ideas presented must be inclusive of all group members; there’s no such thing as a bad idea; and although every idea won’t be used, it’s good to have options to choose from. Students learned that the most effective way to successfully complete a project is to ensure all parties are properly communicating throughout the duration of the project. Good communication can improve the overall quality of a project and the team morale. Students learned that communication and compromise are two of the most important aspects of teamwork, since each person has their own individual strengths. Communication and compromise will ensure that these strengths are highlighted while achieving the desired outcome as a team. Lastly, most students felt that the use of LEGOs and scale maps helped them to visualize their projects and transfer their ideas to SketchUp, particularly in terms of sizing and structure layout.

Curiosity, Connections, Creating Value: Most students felt that their curiosity positively influenced their ability to explore multiple perspectives by allowing them to match their respective interests with various solutions to the issues presented in each project. Students used information from various sources such as Google Earth, research related to each project’s respective location and professional perspectives. Students then applied this information to create solutions for issues such as building design, attractions, utilities, etc. Students described setbacks such as failure to pay attention to important details, breakdown in team communication and effort, program failure/glitches (specifically SktechUp), and failure to keep track of due dates and finalizing a central theme. Most students persisted through these failures by doing

more research, breaking larger tasks into smaller parts for each group member to complete and compromising. Students learned the importance of attention to detail, communication amongst group members, and compromising to account for differing perspectives. Most students felt that these conceptual designs could potentially provide historical and cultural preservation, entertainment, tourism, and marine conservation in the various project locations.

Project Satisfaction: Students enjoyed interacting with their classmates, learning about the various project sites, using the LEGOs to develop their ideas, and learning SketchUp to convey their ideas. However, they felt the project’s scope and deliverables were too much work in comparison to the project timeline and course credit. They also felt the project was too open- ended and they wanted more guidance. The suggested project improvements included more time to work on the project during the semester, more LEGOs to incorporate during the initial project design, and clarification on some deliverables.

Conclusions

In summary, the project appeared to increase students’ Entrepreneurial Mindset as a whole, specifically Ideation and Help Seeking. The results indicate that students may be more inclined to challenge the norm and persist through setbacks, while also being more willing to ask for help. The students appeared to be very open-minded from the beginning; their level of interest nor altruism appeared to change as a result of the project; and empathy did not have a statistically significant change, but the mode did change from 4 to 5. The general responses to the open-ended questions seem to further confirm the results from the ESEMA survey. Students particularly noted that they felt they were able to incorporate their curiosity and were able to persist through setbacks with better communication.

Lessons Learned and Moving Forward

The inaugural offering of the project was deemed successful overall, but as expected, there were several lessons learned and suggested improvements that would make the project better and more impactful. The first lesson learned was that the scope of each site was too large for a group of freshmen students coupled with a five-week time period. The instructor plans to scale back the project to a single site in the next iteration and divide the site into sections for each group. The sites may rotate every four years to avoid repetition in design. The instructor will serve as the project manager and run the project as a design firm with multiple design teams, which will also provide an opportunity to incorporate more project management activities. The second lesson learned was that the project was a bit too open-ended. The instructor also plans to provide more details regarding project deliverables to clear up any uncertainties. The third lesson learned was that the amount of LEGOs provided was insufficient for the required tasks. While the amount of LEGOs purchased for the project was loosely based on the discontinued LEGO Architecture Studio set, the students’ creativity quickly exceeded the quantities provided. The instructor has already purchased twice as many LEGOs for the next iteration. Lastly, SketchUp worked as expected and provided an easy-to-use tool for the students to visualize their conceptual designs. However, one suggestion that arose on multiple occasions was incorporating cloud-based collaborations so students can work on a single model from different computers.

SketchUp has an option through “Trimble Connect” that the instructor plans to research more before the next course offering.

This paper provided a snap-shot of a project’s effectiveness to enhance students’ entrepreneurial mindset. However, more long-term analysis is needed to determine more definitive conclusions and make additional modifications to improve the project as needed. The instructor plans to run one more iteration in the fall of 2021 and adjust the project once more. In the following two years, the instructor plans to evaluate the project’s effectiveness on entrepreneurial mindset before making any additional changes.

Acknowledgements

Saint Louis University is a member of the Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network (KEEN). The authors gratefully acknowledge the support provided by The Kern Family Foundation for the continued efforts to infuse the Entrepreneurial Mindset into the curriculum. The authors would especially like to thank Ms. Julie Gaona, Ms. Abby Grunenwald, Ms. Katie Mannella, Ms. Danielle Miller, Ms. Meghan Stukel, and Ms. Mattie Zautner for their assistance with sorting the large number of LEGOs required for the project.

References

1. Blake, P., Mickey Mouse for Mayor!, in New York Magazine. 1972: New York, NY. p. 41-42, 44-45.

2. Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge 3 Task Committee, Civil Engineering Body of Knowledge: Preparing the Future Civil Engineer. 2018, American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston, VA. p. 173.

3. The Kern Family Foundation. The KEEN Framework: A Guide for Entrepreneurial Mindset. 2021 3/8/2021]; Available from: https://engineeringunleashed.com/framework.

4. Baker, A., P.J. Jensen, and D.A. Kolb, Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach to Knowledge Creation. 2002, Westport Connecticut: Quorum Books.

5. Jordi, R., Reframing the Concept of Reflection: Consciousness, Experiential Learning, and Reflective Learning Practices. American Education Quarterly, 2011. 61(2): p. 181-197.

6. McClellan, R. and A. Hyle, Experiential Learning: Dissolving Classroom and Research Boarders. Journal of Experiential Education, 2012. 35(1): p. 238-252.

7. Reijo, M., The Concept of Experiential Learning and John Dewye's Theory of Reflective Thought and Action. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 2000. 19: p. 54-72.

8. Kolb, D.A., Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 1994, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

9. Kolb, A.Y. and D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning Theory as a Guide for Experiential Educators in Higher Education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 2017. 1(1): p. 7-44.

10. Papert, S. and I. Harel, Constructionism. 1991, Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

11. Prosperi, L.J., The Imagineering Pyramid. 2016, USA: Theme Park Press. 205.

12. Prosperi, L.J., The Imagineering Process. 2018, USA: Theme Park Press. 231.

13. Brunhaver, S.R., et al., Development of the Engineering Student Entrepreneurial Mindset Assessment (ESEMA). Advances in Engineering Education, 2018. 7(1): p. 1-12.