Engineering capstone design and certain entrepreneurship courses have some similarities in terms of student outcomes, course structure, and instructional methods. Both types of courses have the tendency to be less structured than traditional courses and utilize teaching methods such as problem-based or project-based learning. The goals relating to the professional skill set are often similar and can include communication, writing, business, and team skills. Entrepreneurship instructors often focus on the development of the "entrepreneurial mindset" while design instructors focus on the development of "design thinking," characteristics that have some similarities. The role of the teacher in both areas is less likely to be a lecturer, but rather as a coach or a guide that assists students in completing a longer-term project. Many capstone courses have an industry component and can even have an entrepreneurial component. The purpose of this paper is to compare the teaching beliefs and practices of instructors of capstone design courses and entrepreneurship courses. The following research questions will be used to compare the beliefs of capstone versus entrepreneurship instructors:

and is currently a doctoral candidate in the same program. The primary focus of her research concerns assessing the response structure of test scores using item response theory methodology.

Penn State and is currently a doctoral candidate in the same program. The primary focus of her research concerns assessing the response structure of test scores using item response theory methodology.

This study examined how a professional development workshop affected faculty members' perspectives about incorporating academic integrity into their engineering courses. Embedded in the context of a new initiative at a large Mid-Atlantic University that aims to enhance engineering students' understanding of academic integrity and professional ethics, the workshop featured three aspects: 1) enhancing faculty members' self-efficacy in teaching academic integrity and professional ethics; 2) facilitating their development of instructional strategies for teaching integrity and ethics; and 3) supporting their classroom implementation of instructional plans. Seven faculty participants were interviewed after they implemented the new instructional plans in the semester following the workshop. Three major themes emerged from inductive analysis of interview transcripts. First, all participants reported that the workshop helped them become more aware of the importance of incorporating academic integrity into their teaching and were more reflective on how to effectively discuss this critical issue with their students. Second, after the workshop, participants made several changes in their courses and applied a variety of strategies to incorporate academic integrity into four aspects of their teaching: course syllabus, classroom discussion, assignments, and exams. Last, participants discussed several challenges when incorporating academic integrity into their courses, such as limited class time and unexpected extra workload. This work constituted our first steps in facilitating the discussion of academic integrity in engineering courses and supporting faculty members as they prepare students for ethical professional conducts. By exploring faculty members' perspectives about teaching academic integrity and the changes in their instructional design, this study provided important implications for future ethics education in engineering.

Engineering capstone design and certain entrepreneurship courses have some similarities in terms of student outcomes, course structure, and instructional methods. Both types of courses have the tendency to be less structured than traditional courses and utilize teaching methods such as problem-based or project-based learning. The goals relating to the professional skill set are often similar and can include communication, writing, business, and team skills. Entrepreneurship instructors often focus on the development of the "entrepreneurial mindset" while design instructors focus on the development of "design thinking," characteristics that have some similarities. The role of the teacher in both areas is less likely to be a lecturer, but rather as a coach or a guide that assists students in completing a longer-term project. Many capstone courses have an industry component and can even have an entrepreneurial component. The purpose of this paper is to compare the teaching beliefs and practices of instructors of capstone design courses and entrepreneurship courses. The following research questions will be used to compare the beliefs of capstone versus entrepreneurship instructors:1. What are the teaching practices of senior design versus entrepreneurship instructors? 2. How do instructors feel that entrepreneurship should be taught at the university to engineering students? 3. Do faculty members believe that the entrepreneurial mindset is something that can be developed or is it innate?A total of 37 instructors of capstone design courses and engineering entrepreneurship courses at three large public institutions were invited to participate in an online survey. The preliminary results show some interesting similarities and differences between the two groups of instructors. Both groups reported using similar teaching practices, with student-led presentations, mentoring and coaching students, use of personal experiences, and guest speakers as the most frequently used techniques in their courses. Regarding the nature of the entrepreneurial mindset, entrepreneurship educators were more likely to believe that the necessary characteristics to be an entrepreneur are mostly developed; capstone design instructors were more likely to feel these characteristics were innate. While this may not be surprising given the fact that entrepreneurship instructors are teaching students the necessary skills to become an entrepreneur, this finding can have implications for other faculty when advising students on which courses or minors to explore.