Paper ID #24770

Developing a Conceptual Framework to Understand Student Participation in

Entrepreneurship Education Programs
Dr. Prateek Shekhar, University of Michigan
Prateek Shekhar is an Assistant Research Scientist at the University of Michigan. His research is fo-
cused on examining translation of engineering education research in practice, assessment and evaluation
of dissemination initiatives and educational programs in engineering disciplines. He holds a Ph.D. in
Mechanical Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin, M.S. in Electrical Engineering from
University of Southern California and B.S. in Electronics and Communication Engineering from India.
Dr. Aileen Huang-Saad, University of Michigan

Aileen is faculty in Engineering Education and Biomedical Engineering. Previously, Aileen was the
Associate Director for Academics in the Center for Entrepreneurship and was responsible for building
the Program in Entrepreneurship for UM undergraduates, co-developing the masters level entrepreneur-
ship program, and launching the biomedical engineering graduate design program. Aileen has received
a number of awards for her teaching, including the Thomas M. Sawyer, Jr. Teaching Award, the UM
ASEE Outstanding Professor Award and the Teaching with Sakai Innovation Award. Prior to joining the
University of Michigan faculty, she worked in the private sector gaining experience in biotech, defense,
and medical device testing at large companies and start-ups. Aileen’s current research areas include en-
trepreneurship engineering education, impact and engaged learning. Aileen has a Bachelor’s of Science
in Engineering from the University of Pennsylvania, a Doctorate of Philosophy from The Johns Hop-
kins University School of Medicine, and a Masters of Business Administration from the University of
Michigan Ross School of Business. Aileen is also a member of Phi Kappa Phi and Beta Sigma Gamma.

Dr. Julie Libarkin, Michigan State University

Dr. Libarkin is a Professor oat Michigan State University. Currently, her research focuses on model-
driven research design, community-engaged research and mentoring to a) investigate how people perceive,
understand, and make decisions about the planet in order to b) address access, inclusion, equity, and justice
in STEM and academia.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2019
 Developing a conceptual framework to understand student participation in
entrepreneurship education programs

Abstract: The importance of fostering innovativeness and creativity in graduates has been
widely noted in national calls and accreditation reforms to enhance graduates’ competitiveness in
the global economy. As a result, universities and other higher education institutions have
initiated curricular and pedagogical reforms to create learning environments that are conducive
for the attainment of 21st century skills such as innovativeness, teamwork, communication,
problem-solving and creativity. In engineering, among other initiatives, colleges and schools
have leveraged entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) to instill some of these needed skills
in graduates. Although these EEPs differ in size, structure, pedagogical approaches, and
curriculum, they generally focus on fostering entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviors, as well as
teaching fundamental business content.

The development of EEPs in engineering colleges and universities has led to the creation of
engineering entrepreneurship as a new area of inquiry in engineering education research.
Researchers have examined several aspects of EEPs such as student learning, student career
choices, attitudes, and retention. However, two critical gaps remain in the literature. First, there
is an overall lack of research which leverages theory in their examinations. Second, there is
almost no work examining the factors that influence engineering students’ decision to enroll in
EEPs. As EEPs continue to grow and evolve, it becomes imperative to assure that EEPs cater to
a diverse student population and that research revolving around EEPs is grounded in strong
theoretical underpinnings.

This paper presents an overview of our work that focuses on examining engineering students’
participation in EEPs using entrepreneurship assessment and adult participation theories. The
purpose of our paper is to provide a methodological resource for researchers interested in
conducting theory-driven engineering entrepreneurship research. We present the three phases of
our work on the development of a conceptual framework for understanding student participation
in EEPs. Our conceptual framework is guided by the Cross Chain-Of-Response Model of Adult
Learning. We explicate our approach involving the identification of key theories in
entrepreneurship assessment through a systematic review of the literature (Phase 1), synthesis of
the theories into a conceptual model (Phase 2), and validation and revision of factor definitions
based on student interview data. Our work identified six factors that inform student participation
in EEPs – entrepreneurial self-efficacy, desirability, entrepreneurial intent, life transitions,
information and resources, opportunities and barriers. Recommendations for engineering
education researchers and implications for entrepreneurship education research are offered.

Introduction

With the advent of a technology-driven global economy, institutions of higher educations are
increasingly investing in providing undergraduate engineering students with learning
environments that assist in their professional formation. In addition to technical skills, academia
has recognized the importance of developing domain-general skills needed to solve future
problems [1]. Engineering entrepreneurship education has been noted as a platform for
developing 21st century professional skills such as innovativeness, teamwork, communication,

1
problem-solving and creativity [2]. Increasingly, universities and higher education institutions
are leveraging entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) to expose undergraduate engineering
students to entrepreneurial environments in curricular and co-curricular settings [3].
Expanding from a business school focus of venture creation [4], EEPs in engineering also place
emphasis on the development of entrepreneurial mindsets and behaviors in graduates. Many
EEPs seek to promote innovation and creativity in students pursuing both entrepreneurial and
non-entrepreneurial career paths [5]. To develop entrepreneurially-minded engineers, EEPs often
leverage student-centered teaching practices (e.g., project-based learning, group discussion, pitch
competitions, mentorship, and experiential learning) to instill entrepreneurship practices such as
opportunity identification, customer discovery, validation and pivoting [6], [7].

The growth of EEPs has also fueled research in the area. Researchers have explored a variety of
EEP aspects such as their impact on student career choices, attitudes, and retention [8]–[10];
assessed learning outcomes [11]; and have presented different models for EEPs [12].
Cumulatively, these studies have provided empirical support for the benefits of entrepreneurship
education in the professional development of undergraduate engineering students. However, two
critical gaps remain in the EEP literature. First, in spite of the significant amount of research
disseminated through different publication avenues, there is a paucity of research that has
leveraged theory in their work [13]. Second, apart from a few recent studies [14], [15], there is
almost no work examining factors that inform engineering students’ decisions to enroll in EEPs.
Given the continued investment in entrepreneurship education by universities, it is critical to
ensure that EEPs attract diverse students by examining influencers behind engineering students’
engagement/disengagement in EEPs. Furthermore, it is imperative to ground this examination in
relevant theories. With the wider aim of broadening participation in EEPs, this paper presents our
multi-year work involving the development of a conceptual framework to understand student
participant in EEPs. We explicate our multi-step approach involving systematic review of the
literature, synthesis of theories, and validation using student interview data. The purpose of this
paper is to serve as a resource for engineering education researchers who are interested in
entrepreneurship education and may need assistance leveraging extant theories in the field to
conduct their research. Implications for engineering entrepreneurship education and lessons
learned through our work are also presented.

Background and Prior Work

Entrepreneurship education has witnessed significant growth in the last two decades in
postsecondary settings. In engineering, more than half of ASEE affiliated schools offer
entrepreneurship training to undergraduate students [16]. In addition, several nation-wide
programs such as the National Science Foundation’s I-Corps [17], the Epicenter Program:
National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation [18], and the Kern Engineering
Education Network [19] have been initiated to provide entrepreneurial training to scientists,
engineers and students; contributing to the growth of entrepreneurship education. For example,
the Epicenter program provided entrepreneurial training to more than 450 students at
approximately 130 post-secondary institutions over the course of five years following its
initiation in 2011 [20]. Similarly, the national I-Corps program has been providing training to
NSF funded scientists to examine the venture potential of their scientific innovations. To date,
NSF supported 9 I-Corps Nodes and over 100 I-Corps sites located at different higher education

2
institutions are engaged in providing entrepreneurial training [17], [18]. Focused on engineering,
The Kern Engineering Education Network partners with several engineering institutions to
develop best practices in developing entrepreneurial mindset in engineering students [19].

With the increased dissemination of entrepreneurial training among science and engineering
faculty through these programs, it is highly likely that the number of engineering schools
offering EEPs will increase. Furthermore, this growth is anticipated due to continued calls for
fostering innovation [21] and recognition of entrepreneurship as an important element of
engineering education [22], [23]. Depending on the availability of resources and targeted goals,
EEPs for engineering students follow a variety of existing models, such as specialized academic
degrees, including minors [18], standalone entrepreneurship courses [24], and entrepreneurial
training integrated into existing engineering design programs [25]. In addition to varied
programmatic structures, EEPs also differ in their pedagogical approaches which range from
student-centered teaching practices, formalized mentorship with practicing entrepreneurs,
informal field trips, to guest speaker-centered seminars [26].

This multitude of varying approaches to engineering entrepreneurship education has brought

with it research opportunities to 1) examine the impact of EEPs on students, and 2) explore what
factors drive individuals to entrepreneurial training and practice. As noted in the sections above,
there have been several studies focusing on the former aspect; research on the latter aspect is just
beginning to emerge. For instance, (Blinded for review) studied EEPs from a pathway to entry
perspective by examining differences and similarities between students participating in a
curricular and co-curricular EEPs [27]. Using regression analysis on undergraduate student
enrollment data, the researchers found that student characteristics such as gender, nationality and
GPA are influential in determining the type of EEPs (curricular and co-curricular) students select
to participate in. Furthermore, the researchers found that curricular EEPs act as a gateway to
involvement in entrepreneurial activities outside of the classroom and women are more likely to
participate in curricular EEPs than co-curricular programs. In another recent work, Yi & Duval-
Couetil (2018) developed an entrepreneurial motivation scale to study motivation behind
engineering students’ decision to select entrepreneurial careers [14]. The researchers identified
three sub-factors contributing to entrepreneurial motivation: motivation for creating and finding
a solution; motivation for personal gains, such as earning more money; and motivation for
managerial pursuits, such as heading an organization.

These two studies suggest that students’ drive to engage in different EEPs may differ across
demographics and are mediated by individual characteristics such as entrepreneurial motivation
and interest. As engineering education reforms seek to develop a skilled, diverse workforce, it is
imperative to examine the influencers behind engineering students’ participation in EEPs to
foster skill-development in a diverse student population through exposure to entrepreneurial
training and practice. Findings from these examinations could provide critical insights into
factors that EEP developers should be cognizant of when promoting diversity in EEPs,
particularly among groups that have been historically underrepresented in the field. Also, the
nascent and emergent state of entrepreneurship education in engineering education research
warrants that such examinations are grounded in strong theoretical foundations and serve as a
resource for guiding future work in engineering entrepreneurship education. This paper focuses
on unpacking participation in EEPs from a theoretical perspective and presents implications for

3
future research. We present our project steps to highlight the ways by which we navigated the
process of developing a conceptual model utilizing systematic review of literature and validation
of the model through qualitative student interviews.

Our Research Approach

Our research project consisted of three phases: 1) a systematic literature review [13], 2)
development of a conceptual model [28], and 3) model validation [29]. Given the
interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship education, we first started with a systematic literature
review of the most commonly used theories in entrepreneurship education assessment in
business, engineering and education literature (Phase 1). Based on our findings in Phase 1, we
synthesized the identified theories and mapped them to an adult participation in learning model
to create an entrepreneurship-specific model of student participation (Phase 2). Finally, in Phase
3, we used qualitative student interviews to validate the model. A description of the three phases
explicating background, methods and key results is presented in the following three sections.

Phase 1: Identification of Key Theories

Background. The use of theory in education research provides a process for systematically
developing and organizing ideas to explain the phenomenon under study. Typically, theories
explicate plausible relationships between different concepts and serve as a basis for “considering
how what is unknown can be organized” [30]. For researchers, theories play a vital role in
developing a comprehensive conceptual understanding of the problem under study by leveraging
relevant ideas and concepts that have been explored in the literature. They provide researchers
with a framework for designing a study and also serve as a lens for conducting the analysis [31].
Thus, to understand student participation in EEPs (the phenomenon under study in the current
work), we first needed to identify key theories that have been used in entrepreneurship literature.
To accomplish this, we conducted a systematic review of the literature with an overall intent to
develop an understanding of entrepreneurship education and leveraged the review to identify key
theories used in entrepreneurship assessment.

Methods. Results of the systematic review are detailed elsewhere [13] and only briefly discussed
here. The review involved a comprehensive search of entrepreneurship education assessment
journal articles and conference papers published in two major databases: Elsevier’s Scopus and
ProQuest. These two databases were selected to examine a literature from the fields of
engineering, education and business. The string used for searching was [entrepreneurship
education OR entrepreneurial education] AND [measurement OR instrument OR assessment].
After removing duplicates and only including empirical studies, a total of 359 articles were
included in the final dataset for our presented work. Two researchers coded the articles for
theories used in entrepreneurship education assessment. A liberal approach for identifying
theories as used, if a theory was discussed before the methods section of the article, it was coded.
This approach allowed us to capture a wide range of theories that have informed
entrepreneurship education research studies. An intra-class correlation of 0.97 between the
researchers assured inter-rater reliability in the coding process.

4
Results. The coding results found that only 53% of the papers referenced theory in their work.
This result further strengthened the rationale behind our work to develop a theory-driven model
to assist future entrepreneurship education research. Nonetheless, a total of 153 unique theories
were documented in the 359 articles. It is important to note that the theories were documented
irrespective of the disciplinary background of the articles in which they were cited in to generate
a wide list instead of focusing specifically on engineering fields. This emphasized that
researchers may utilize a wide spectrum of lenses to study different aspects of EEPs due to the
interdisciplinary nature of entrepreneurship education and the nascent state of research in the
field. Furthermore, this reiterates the need to consider the key theories when researching EEPs,
specifically student participation for our case. To identify the key theories, the documented
theories were assessed for their level of use based on the number of times they were cited in the
359 articles. Theories that were cited in at least 10 articles were shortlisted, yielding a total of
seven key theories – 1) Theory of Planned Behavior [32], 2) Theory of Reasoned Action [33], 3)
Social Cognitive Career Theory [34] , 4) Social Cognitive Theory [35], 5) Social Learning
Theory [36], 6) Self-Efficacy Theory [37], 7) Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Event Theory [38].

Phase 2: Development of Conceptual Model

Background. Research on student participation is well-established in higher education.

However, existing literature offers limited theoretical work that is specific to student
participation in entrepreneurship programs. To develop a conceptual model, we leveraged what
we know from entrepreneurship literature and applied it to student participation. By critically
reviewing the entrepreneurship theory literature, we were able to refine the student participation
model to develop a new conceptual model for EEP. This development of a conceptual model for
understanding student participation in EEPs required analyzing the key theories found in Phase 1
to identify relevant factors and mapping the factors to existing models offered in adult
participation literature. In particular, we identified Cross’s Chain-of-Response (COR) model for
understanding influences behind one’s participation in learning activities and programs [39]. The
COR is a seminal work that is widely used in higher education research [40]–[42]. The model
integrates three prior models that conceptualized motivational aspects behind student
participation [43]–[45]. The basis of the COR model is that a student’s decision to participate in
an educational program or activity is a complex process informed by the student’s perceptions of
their self and their interaction with socio-environmental factors. The COR model posits that
students’ decisions to participate in an educational program is a result of the interaction between
internal (self-evaluation, attitudes, goals and expectations) and external (life transitions,
information, and opportunities and barriers) influencers.

While the COR model consolidates multiple motivational and environmental aspects into a
holistic framework, the model is not specific to entrepreneurship education programs. This
generality of the model provides the rationale for Phase 2 which involved refining the model in
the context of EEPs. Thus, we performed a critical review [46], analyzing and synthesizing
competing entrepreneurship theories, to specifically address student participation in
entrepreneurship education programs. The aim our critical review was to synthesize commonly
used theories in entrepreneurship assessment literature and consolidate them with the COR

5
model to create a new model for understanding influencers informing students’ participation in
EEPs.

Methods. The Search, Appraisal, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) procedure for critical reviews
was used because it provides a systematic method for identifying key theoretical factors used in
entrepreneurship assessment literature, which were used to revise the generic COR model of
adult learning to make it specific to EEP participation [46]. For our study, we utilized this
method by systematically reviewing commonly used theories (searching) and shortlisting them
based on their usage (appraisal) in the area of interest (as described in Phase 1). Then we
synthesized the theories to identify common factors (synthesis) and used the identified factors to
refine the COR model (analysis) in Phase 2.

Results. In the synthesis of the seven theories from Phase 1, we identified two overarching
theories that incorporated four other theories. Specifically, theory of reasoned action is
subordinate to theory of planned behavior; and social cognitive, social learning and self-efficacy
theories are included in the comprehensive social cognitive career theory. Thus, at the end of this
theory-level synthesis, we found identified the three unique theories (Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB), Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT), and Shapero’s Entrepreneurial Event
Theory (SEE)) that are most commonly used in entrepreneurship assessment studies. Further
factor-level analysis of the three unique theories revealed that some of their constituent factors
are similar:

1) An individual’s confidence in their ability to successfully perform a particular task is

noted as a common antecedent to engaging in an activity in all three theories. However,
differing terminologies are used to identify this confidence – self-efficacy in SCCT,
perceived behavioral control in TPB, and perceived feasibility in SEE.
2) In SEE, the factor ‘Perceived desirability’ conceptually incorporates three sub-factors
which are also noted in the other two theories: attitude (noted in TPB), subjective norm
(noted in TPB), and outcome expectations and goals noted in SCCT).

Lastly, the final analysis involved mapping the factors with the COR model. It should be noted,
that the COR model has three internal (self-evaluation, attitudes about education, goals and
expectations) and three external factors (life transitions, opportunities and barriers, and
information and resources). With the exception of life transitions (noted in SEE), the factors
identified in entrepreneurship theories are largely consistent with the COR’s internal factors. In
particular, self-efficacy (SCCT), perceived behavioral control (TPB), and perceived feasibility
(SEE) are similar to the COR model’s ‘self-evaluation’. TPB’s ‘attitude’ and SCCT’s ‘outcome
expectations and goals’ are similar to the COR model’s ‘attitudes about education’ and ‘goals
and expectations,’ respectively. To develop the Participation in Entrepreneurship Education
Programs (PEEP) model (Figure 1), similar factors among the three theories and the COR model
were combined and rephrased to make the COR model EEP-specific [28]. This was performed
through multiple iterations and detailed discussions by the project team. The project team
consisted of researchers with entrepreneurship, engineering education, and discipline-based
education research backgrounds, which assisted in controlling for potential biases. The
description of the factors is presented in Table 1.

6
Table 1: Model Factors

Factor Definition Adapted from

Entrepreneurial Confidence in one’s ability to perform entrepreneurial tasks COR, TPB,
Self-Efficacy SEE, SCCT
Desirability Perception of EEP participation to be valuable (attitude), COR, TPB,
helpful in meeting one’s goals (goals and expectations), SEE, SCCT
and social approval for the value of participation
(subjective norm)
Entrepreneurial Intent to engage in entrepreneurial activities COR, TPB,
Intent SEE
Life Personal circumstances that may impact COR, SEE
Transitions engagement/disengagement in EEPs
Information Formal and informal resources that provide information COR
and Resources about EEPs
Opportunities Programmatic aspects that hinder/promote participation COR
and Barriers

Figure 1. Participation in Entrepreneurship Education Programs Model

(Reproduced with permission from International Journal of Engineering Education [28] )

Phase 3: Validation of the Conceptual Model

Background. As noted in the previous sections, the PEEP Model was developed through careful
synthesis of well-established theories for which significant empirical support exists. Further
validation of the PEEP is warranted, particularly in the context of engineering students.
Validation of a conceptual model is a process that starts with the researcher (Phase 1 and Phase
2), who then seeks validation among ‘outsiders’ [47]. In particular, it is important to determine:
1) if each of the factors in the PEEP model are emergent within the study population relative to

7
the outcome of participation; and 2) the way in which those factors are manifesting. This initial
qualitative work sets the stage for subsequent identification of appropriate quantitative measures
for further empirical validation of the developed conceptual model.

Methods. A qualitative interview-based approach was used to gather students’ perspectives to

unpack factors informing engineering students’ decisions to engage/disengage in EEPs. The
interview participants were undergraduate engineering students enrolled in a large, research
university. Maximum variation sampling allowed us to capture varied perspectives by including
students representing a wide range of characteristics [48]. Our sample of 20 participants included
undergraduate engineering students with different EEP experiences (e.g. individual courses,
minors, co-curricular, and no participation) from varied academic standing, engineering majors,
and gender (Table 2).

Table 2: Participant Background

Participant Characteristic Distribution*

Gender Male (10) and Female (10)
Major Computer Science (3), Mechanical
Engineering (5), Industrial and Operations
Engineering (3), Biomedical Engineering (1),
Nuclear Engineering (1), Computer
Engineering (2), and Undeclared (5)
Academic Standing Freshman (6), Sophomore (4), Junior (4), and
Senior (6)
* (N) = Number of Participants

A semi-structured interview protocol was co-developed by three researchers and was revised
based on feedback from students [49], [50]. All in-person interviews were audio recorded and
professionally transcribed for analysis. The interviews were analyzed using the First Cycle and
Second Cycle coding approach [51]. In the first cycle, an initial inventory of codes was
generated. Basic labels (descriptive coding) were assigned to participant responses identifying
influencers that informed students’ decision to engage in EEPs, negative or positive. The coding
process was performed by two researchers. In the second cycle, the emergent codes from the first
cycle were categorized by aggregating similar codes based on their conceptual similarity. This
categorization involved using the PEEP model as a guiding framework. The two cycles of coding
involved two researchers independently coding the transcripts, follow-up discussions to resolve
discrepancies and performing checks by consulting an external researcher. This process yielded
high inter-rater reliability (intra-class correlation of 0.88) and strengthened the research quality
of our qualitative, interpretative approach [52], [53]. Lastly, member checks were conducted
with 4 participants to validate the findings of the interview analysis.

Results. The coding analysis confirmed that factors in the PEEP model inform engineering
students’ decisions to engage or disengage in EEPs. Furthermore, the first and second cycle
coding contributed to refining the interpretation and context of the PEEP factors. Since the focus
of this paper is on the factors informing student participation in EEPs, we present the results of
our interview analysis in regard with how the findings contributed to expanding the definitions of

8
PEEP model factors for engineering students. Table 3 presents the six PEEP model factors and
their descriptions which were developed using initial definitions (Table 1) and emergent findings
from student interview responses (italicized). Example student quotations for the factors are
provided in the Appendix.

Table 3: Factor descriptions incorporating student responses

Factor Descriptions
Entrepreneurial Confidence in one’s ability to perform business-related and
Self-Efficacy communication/public speaking tasks
Desirability Perception of EEP participating to be valuable for networking and gaining
business knowledge (attitude), in meeting personal development goals and
to make a lot of money (goals and expectations), and social approval for
the value from peers/friends and family (subjective norm).
Entrepreneurial The intent to start a company (venture creation) and devising solutions to
Intent problems (problem-solving)
Life Students’ current academic level may impact engagement/disengagement
Transitions in EEPs as their graduation and post-graduation plans vary depending on
academic year
Information Formal (academic advising) and informal (student events and
and Resources organizations) resources that provide (purpose and/or benefits of EEPs)
information about EEPs
Opportunities Programmatic aspects associated with course scheduling, technology-
and Barriers oriented EEP curriculum, and instruction used in EEPs

Discussion and Implications

First, the findings of the systematic literature review noted that, in spite of the limited reference
to theory, a notable number of theories (153) were cited in the reviewed entrepreneurship
assessment literature. This highlights the variety of lenses through which different aspects of
entrepreneurship education can be examined. Given the interdisciplinary nature of
entrepreneurship education, it seems understandable that there are several theories that can be
used for researching the area. However, considering the nascent state of entrepreneurship
education in engineering fields, the use of several theories might make their selection and
appropriate use challenging, particularly among engineering educators interested in
entrepreneurship. This is also indirectly noted in our Phase 1 analysis which showed that out of
the 153 identified theories, only seven theories were used in more than ten studies.
Second, our Phase 2 analysis pointed out that among the seven, four theories were subordinate of
two overarching theories, thus, yielding three unique theories (SCCT, TPB, and SEE).
Furthermore, our factor-level analysis noted that several constituent factors defined in these
unique theories overlapped with each other on a conceptual level. These results highlight how
the emergent engineering entrepreneurship education field can benefit from work that brings
together concepts and theories from disparate fields; and consequently, address the lack of
holistic theoretical perspectives that are specific to engineering entrepreneurship. Recent efforts
show that the various stakeholders have begun moving in the direction of coalescing different
terminologies to build a unique vision for entrepreneurial training for engineers. For example,

9
although not derived from theories, the widely used 3C’s (creativity, curiosity and connection)
conception of entrepreneurial mindset has provided a common terminology, particularly for
educators [19]. Our work presented in this paper is a similar effort (in regard with developing a
common taxonomy) which focuses on student participation in EEPs and provides a
comprehensive model rooted in the literature. The SALSA procedure presented in this paper
provides an example of how systematic review methods can be used by researchers in
developing conceptual models to ground their work in relevant theories. We encourage other
approaches for synthesizing vast literature from different fields into more cognitively digestible
models and mitigate the risks of ‘reinventing the wheel’ as entrepreneurship education continues
to grow as a critical area of inquiry in engineering education research.

Lastly, our Phase 3 results validated the PEEP factors as influencers of students participating in
EEPs, and also established the meanings of the factors from an engineering student perspective.
For example, students’ responses indicated that entrepreneurial intent constituted the intent to
start a company as well the intent to devise solutions to problems. This finding leads to the
fundamental question about the grounding and direction of EEPs in engineering education.
Although engineering EEPs have moved beyond venture creation to focus on skill-development,
programs place significant emphasis on business aspects. In regard to student participation, our
findings show that students are attracted to EEPs because they want to work on solving a
problem rather than just create a venture.

For future research, this suggests that while the broader theoretical work conducted in other
relevant fields assists in identification of key factors that may influence the area under study,
factors may hold nuanced, if not entirely different, connotations for engineering. Thus, more
work should be conducted in developing engineering-specific conceptual models that incorporate
relevant theories offered in the literature. Such models will assist researchers as well as
administrators and practitioners in their development and assessment efforts. Particularly, in the
context of engineering entrepreneurship education, gathering engineering stakeholders’
perspectives will be critical for theory-driven work because the majority of the foundational
work in entrepreneurship has been performed with business students, faculty and industry
employees in mind; failing to include additional factors that may not be important or explicit in
traditional business entrepreneurship contexts but critical for engineering entrepreneurship
education. While use of key theories and factors derived from different fields allows multiple
lenses to be considered, validation and revision of frameworks to incorporate engineering
perspectives will assist in enhancing the quality of research in engineering entrepreneurship
education.

Conclusion

Recent years have seen a rapid rise in the creation of engineering entrepreneurship curricula,
programs and centers. Because of the nascence of the field, there are few theory-based measures
and constructs that can be used to study and inform practice in this the growing field. The work
presented here seeks to bridge this gap by systematically exploring theories used in
entrepreneurship assessment and using them to inform the development of a model for
understanding student participation in entrepreneurship education programs. Our research
provides critical guidance for this growing community as new programs are in the process of

10
being designed and expanded. As the engineering education community works towards
cultivating a diverse and innovative engineering workforce for the future, it is critical that we
examine how innovative educational programs such as entrepreneurship engage and influence all
types of students. This research will guide universities in developing effective, scalable and
accessible engineering entrepreneurship education programs with informed reach. Using past
literature from business, engineering and education; gives us confidence that the PEEP model
presented in this paper constitutes possible factors and the validation from engineering students’
perspective produces a more thorough understanding of how the model factors may manifest
when applied in engineering entrepreneurship education.

Acknowledgements

This project is funded by the U.S National Science Foundation through grant number 1531533.
The opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the National Science
Foundation.

References

[1] D. T. Rover, “New economy, new engineer,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 427–428,
2005.
[2] T. Byers, T. Seelig, S. Sheppard, and P. Weilerstein, “Entrepreneurship: It’s Role in
Engineering Education,” Bridg., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 35–40, 2013.
[3] S. K. Gilmartin, H. L. Chen, and C. Estrada, “Investigating Entrepreneurship Program
Models in Undergraduate Engineering Education,” vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 2048–2065, 2016.
[4] J. A. Katz, “The chronology and intellectual trajectory of American entrepreneurship
education 1876-1999,” J. Bus. Ventur., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 283–300, 2003.
[5] T. Standish-Kuon and M. P. Rice, “Introducing engineering and science students to
entrepreneurship: Models and influential factors at six American universities,” J. Eng.
Educ., vol. 91, no. 1, p. 33, 2002.
[6] N. Duval-Couetil, A. Shartrand, and T. Reed, “The Role of Entrepreneurship Program
Models and Experiential Activities on Engineering Student Outcomes,” Adv. Eng. Educ.,
vol. 5, no. 1, p. n1, 2016.
[7] S. E. Zappe, K. S. Hochstedt, and E. C. Kisenwether, “Faculty beliefs of entrepreneurship
and design education: an exploratory study comparing entrepreneurship and design
faculty,” J. Eng. Entrep., vol. 4, pp. 55–78, 2013.
[8] N. Duval-Couetil, T. Reed-Rhoads, and S. Haghighi, “Engineering students and
entrepreneurship education: Involvement, attitudes and outcomes,” Int. J. Eng. Educ, vol.
28, no. 2, pp. 425–435, 2012.
[9] Q. Jin et al., “Entrepreneurial Career Choice and Characteristics of Engineering and
Business Students,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 598–613, 2016.
[10] M. W. Ohland, S. A. Frillman, G. Zhang, C. E. Brawner, and T. K. Miller, “The effect of
an entrepreneurship program on GPA and retention,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 93, no. 4, pp.
293–301, 2004.
[11] P. Shekhar, A. Huang-Saad, J. Libarkin, R. Cummings, and V. Tafurt, “Assessment of
student learning in an entrepreneurship practicum course,” ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo.,
2017.

11
[12] A. Gerhart and D. E. Melton, “Entrepreneurially Minded Learning : Incorporating
Stakeholders , Discovery, Opportunity Identification , and Value Creation into Problem-
based Learning Modules with Examples and Assessment Specific to Fluid Mechanics,”
ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo., 2016.
[13] A. Y. Huang-Saad, C. S. Morton, and J. C. Libarkin, “Entrepreneurship in Higher
Education: A Research Review for Engineering Education Researchers,” J. Eng. Educ.,
vol. 107, no. 2, pp. 00–00, 2018.
[14] S. Yi and N. Duval-Couetil, “What Drives Engineering Students To Be Entrepreneurs?
Evidence of Validity for an Entrepreneurial Motivation Scale,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 107,
no. 2, 2018.
[15] P. Shekhar, A. Huang-Saad, J. Libarkin, and A. K. Ostrowski, “’Is Someone in Your
Family an Entrepreneur ?’: Examining the Influence of Family Role Models on Students ’
Entrepreneurial Self-efficacy and its Varia- tion Across Gender,”ASEE Annu. Conf. Expo.,
2018.
[16] A. Shartrand, P. Weilerstein, M. Besterfield-Sacre, and K. Golding, “Technology
entrepreneurship programs in U.S. engineering schools: course and program
characteristics at the undergraduate level,” 2010.
[17] NSF, “NSF Innovation Corps (I-CorpsTM),” 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/i-corps/.
[18] Epicenter, “Epicenter Program: National Center for Engineering Pathways to Innovation,”
2017. [Online]. Available: http://epicenter.stanford.edu/page/about.
[19] KEEN, “Kern Entrepreneurial Engineering Network,” 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://engineeringunleashed.com/keen/. [Accessed: 01-Jan-2017].
[20] Epicenter, “150 Students Named University Innovation Fellows,” 2015. .
[21] National Economic Council and Council of Economic Advisers & Office of Science and
Technology Policy, “A Strategy for American Innovation.” 2011.
[22] S. A. Male, M. B. Bush, and E. S. Chapman, “Understanding generic engineering
competencies,” Australas. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 147–156, 2011.
[23] E. Crawley, J. Malmqvist, S. Ostlund, and D. Brodeur, “Rethinking engineering
education,” CDIO Approach, p. 302, 2007.
[24] A. D. Amante and T. A. Ronquillo, “Technopreneurship as an outcomes-based education
tool applied in some engineering and computing science programme,” Australas. J. Eng.
Educ., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 32–38, 2017.
[25] G. J. Costello, “More than just a game: the role of simulation in the teaching of product
design and entrepreneurship to mechanical engineering students,” Eur. J. Eng. Educ., vol.
42, no. 6, pp. 644–652, 2017.
[26] S. Gilmartin, A. Shartrand, H. L. Chen, C. Estrada, and S. Sheppard, “US-Based
Entrepreneurship Programs for Undergraduate Engineers: Scope, Development, Goals,
and Pedagogies,” Epic. Tech. Br., vol. 1, 2014.
[27] A. Huang-Saad and S. Celis, “How student characteristics shape engineering pathways to
entrepreneurship education,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 527–537, 2017.
[28] P. Shekhar, A. Huang-Saad, and J. Libarkin, “Understanding Student Participation in
Entrepreneurship Education Programs: A Critical Review,” Int. J. Eng. Educ., vol. 34, no.
3, pp. 1060–1072, 2018.
[29] P. Shekhar and A. Huang-Saad, “Examining Engineering Students’ Participation in
Entrepreneurship Education Programs: Implications for Research and Practice,” J. Eng.

12
 Educ., In Review
[30] M. Garner, C. Wagner, and B. Kawulich, Teaching research methods in the social
sciences. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2009.
[31] P. M. Reeves and T. Pennsylvania, “Comparisons of Faculty and Student Definitions of
Entrepreneurship Comparisons of Faculty and Student Definitions of Entrepreneurship
Abstract A definitive definition of entrepreneurship is elusive and may contribute to the,”
2014.
[32] I. Azjen and I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991.
[33] M. Fishbein, “A theory of reasoned action: some applications and implications.,” in
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1980, vol. 27,
p. 65.
[34] C. R. W. Lent, S. D. Brown, G. Hackett, E. J. H. Greenhaus, and G. A. Callanan,
“Encyclopedia of Career Development Social Cognitive Career Theory,” pp. 751–755,
2015.
[35] A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory of self-regulation,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis.
Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 248–287, 1991.
[36] A. Bandura and R. Walters, Social learning and personality development. New York:
Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1963.
[37] A. Bandura, “Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change,” Psychol.
Rev., vol. 84, pp. 91–215, 1977.
[38] A. Shapero and L. Sokol, “The Social Dimensions of Entrepreneurship,” in Encyclopedia
of Entrepreneurship, D. Sexton and K. Vesper, Eds. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1982, pp. 72–90.
[39] K. P. Cross, “Adults as Learners. Increasing Participation and Facilitating Learning,”
1981.
[40] S. Cincinnato, B. De Wever, H. Van Keer, and M. Valcke, “The influence of social
background on participation in adult education: applying the cultural capital framework,”
Adult Educ. Q., vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 143–168, 2016.
[41] R. Desjardins and K. Rubenson, “Participation Patterns in Adult E ducation: the role of
institutions and public policy frameworks in resolving coordination problems,” Eur. J.
Educ., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 262–280, 2013.
[42] D. F. Zellers, V. M. Howard, and M. A. Barcic, “Faculty mentoring programs:
Reenvisioning rather than reinventing the wheel,” Rev. Educ. Res., vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 552–
588, 2008.
[43] K. Rubenson, Participation in recurrent education: A research review. OECD, 1977.
[44] A. Tough, “Choosing to Learn,” in The Learning Stance: Essays in Celebration of Human
Learning, G. M. Healy and W. L. Zeigler, Eds. Washington D. C: National Institute of
Education, 1979.
[45] R. Boshier, “Educational participation and dropout: A theoretical model,” Adult Educ.,
vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 255–282, 1973.
[46] M. J. Grant and A. Booth, “A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and
associated methodologies,” Health Info. Libr. J., vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 91–108, 2009.
[47] Y. Jabareen, “Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure,”
Int. J. Qual. methods, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 49–62, 2009.
[48] L. Cohen, L. Manion, and K. Morrison, Research methods in education. Routledge, 2013.

13
[49] A. K. Shenton, “Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects,”
Educ. Inf., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 63–75, 2004.
[50] M. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage, 2002.
[51] J. Saldaña, The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
2010.
[52] J. Walther, N. W. Sochacka, and N. N. Kellam, “Quality in interpretive engineering
education research: Reflections on an example study,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 102, no. 4, pp.
626–659, 2013.
[53] T. A. Schwandt, Y. S. Lincoln, and E. G. Guba, “Judging interpretations: But is it
rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation,” New Dir. Eval., vol.
2007, no. 114, pp. 11–25, 2007.

14

Factor
Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy
Desirability
Entrepreneurial Intent
Life Transitions
Information and Resources
Opportunities and Barriers
Appendix
Example Student Quotes
Example Student Quote
I really enjoy public speaking, and I have for almost my
whole life, like since I was in elementary school. Pitching to
me is just an extension of that.
He also wanted to do the Entrepreneurship Minor because he
saw a lot of value in it. Especially for finding a job, coming
out with an Entrepreneurship Minor, many startups,
businesses will see that and say, ‘Wow, okay. You already
have all this experience, we don't have to teach you it’.
I think it was mostly I was interested in starting the business
and seeing what it took to take an idea into an LLC.
Teach it as early as you can, show it as early as you can.
I'll read a course description and then I'll see if it aligns with
what I intend to do.
It's not actively on my mind to say, ‘I'm going to take these
courses’. Especially as a double major, I just don't have the
schedule space.
15