Search

An open, receptive, and curious (mindful) mindset is often cited as important in innovation. Yet, engineering education typically focuses on narrow analytical training at the expense of fostering expansive thinking. To specifically explore the relationship between a mindful attitude (open, receptive, curious) and innovation, we examined the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and innovation self-efficacy in a sample of 1,460 engineering students and recent graduates who completed the Engineering Majors Survey. Using social cognitive theory to frame our analysis, we found that a mindful attitude is correlated with innovation self-efficacy and that students with a highly mindful attitude tend to participate in learning experiences related to design and innovation. These results lay the groundwork for how mindfulness may promote foundational skills for successful entrepreneurship such as innovation, learning, and motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When survey time is limited, education researchers may be faced with the choice of using an extremely brief measure of innovativeness or using no measure at all. To meet the need for a very brief measure, a 5-item innovation self-efficacy (ISE.5) scale was developed using the 19- item Dyer et al. Innovative Behavior Scale (IBS) as a starting point, adapted for undergraduate engineering students, and then condensed using confirmatory factor analysis. The ISE.5 measures innovation self-efficacy as a unitary construct drawn from Dyer et al.'s five innovative behavior components (Questioning, Observing, Experimenting, Networking Ideas and Associational Thinking) and has good internal and external validity as well as good test-retest reliability. The ISE.5 (as a measure of innovation self-efficacy) is shown to be an important mediator between innovation interests and a desire to pursue innovative work as a career postgraduation. This mediator relationship is consistent among important sub-populations of engineering students such as females, underrepresented minorities and first generation college students. While not a substitute for a full multi-factor innovation assessment tool, the ISE.5 can serve as an important indicator of innovation self-efficacy among an undergraduate engineering [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was inspired by the restructuring of a mid-sized private research university's mechanical engineering undergraduate major. This restructuring consists of offering major "concentrations" in several different areas which were developed based on student and alumni feedback, and redesigning academic advising for mechanical engineering majors. This time of change is being utilized as a chance to assess the undergraduate student climate in the department more generally. Climate is operationalized around the following factors: sense of community, perceptions of diversity of both faculty and students, and perceptions of inclusivity. This study is guided by the following evaluation questions: 1. What can be learned about our students' self-beliefs and perceptions of supports? How do they differ by gender and major? 2. How might self-beliefs and perceptions of supports be related? To answer these questions, data were collected via surveys administered to current students who have declared a major in mechanical, biomechanical, or design engineering. The data gathered included students' study skills and habits, their thoughts on program diversity and inclusivity, experiences with faculty, the sense of community of the program, and demographic information including parents' education levels and careers, high school classes and exposure to engineering, and engineering activities outside of school. We found that there were significant differences between men and women, and mechanical engineering and design students. For men and women, these differences were present in the areas of certain engineering skills, engineering identity, innovation task self-efficacy, engineering task self-efficacy, engineering identity, major fit, and major perception. For mechanical engineering and design students, these differences were present in innovation and engineering task selfefficacy, sense of engineering community, engineering identity, and major perception. Lastly, we found strong positive correlations between the three supports considered in this work (support of diversity, engineering community support, and faculty support) and a student's sense of fitting into their major. In addition, a strong sense of engineering community support is correlated with greater engineering task self-efficacy, whereas a stronger sense of faculty support is correlated with greater skill beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]