Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Open 2013: 30-Second Elevator Pitch Blended Approach--Lessons Learned

745 views

Published on

0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

• Be the first to like this

Views
Total views
745
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
5
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
• develop scaleable, compelling, interdisciplinary curricula and delivery methods that provide broader access to curriculum and reduce the entrepreneur’s time from &quot;innovative idea to market implementation.&quot;
• develop scaleable, compelling, interdisciplinary curricula and delivery methods that provide broader access to curriculum and reduce the entrepreneur’s time from &quot;innovative idea to market implementation.&quot;
• We selected two exercises from the Supercoach curriculum (30s and 1 Pages Strategic Business plan)
• We selected two exercises from the Supercoach curriculum (30s and 1 Pages Strategic Business plan)
• ASU Hosted Two Workshops A Test and a Control WorkshopThe workshop remained the same duration (four days)Teams from each workshop presented a 30 Second Pitch that was recorded.The Final Presentation was also recorded27 electronic evaluators reviewed the pitches and final presentations.A “live” panel of experts evaluated the final presentations.
• Place Holder Need Graph - The panel of 15 judges independently assessed the 30-second pitches, which were delivered by 24 participants. In total, judges submitted 358 scores (224 for the comparison and 134 for the treatment) using the five-item checklist (see Figure 2). Each item had three categories of performance “Yes”(11-5), “No” (0-5), and “Needs Work” (6-10).Individual scores were calculated for each of the items, and the final score was made up of the scores in the five items. The final scores are the basic unit of analysis (n=358). The result of the independent t-test shows no significant statistical difference between the treatment (M=10.54, SD=2.53) and comparison group (M=10.16, SD=2.37); t(356)=-­‐1.44, p=0.214 (95%CI -­‐0.90 to 0.14).
• Place Holder Need Graph - The panel of 15 judges independently assessed the 30-second pitches, which were delivered by 24 participants. In total, judges submitted 358 scores (224 for the comparison and 134 for the treatment) using the five-item checklist (see Figure 2). Each item had three categories of performance “Yes”(11-5), “No” (0-5), and “Needs Work” (6-10).Individual scores were calculated for each of the items, and the final score was made up of the scores in the five items. The final scores are the basic unit of analysis (n=358). The result of the independent t-test shows no significant statistical difference between the treatment (M=10.54, SD=2.53) and comparison group (M=10.16, SD=2.37); t(356)=-­‐1.44, p=0.214 (95%CI -­‐0.90 to 0.14).
• ### Open 2013: 30-Second Elevator Pitch Blended Approach--Lessons Learned

1. 1. THE WAY ENTREPRENEURS LEARN: Migration of a 30-Second Elevator Pitch Exercise from Instructor-Led Delivery to Blended Learning Technology Dan Suhr, PhD Director of Research and Development Sharon Ballard President / CEO EnableVentures, Inc. You envision . . . we enable™NSF GRANT SUPPORT AND DISCLAIMER - The project described was supported by Grant Number 0945987from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
2. 2. The Way Entrepreneurs Learn: Migration of a30-Second Elevator Pitch Exercise fromInstructor-Led Delivery to Blended LearningTechnologyDan Suhr, (inXsol, LLC), Sharon Ballard(EnableVentures, Inc.), Ricardo Gomez(NCIIA), Henry Ryng (inXsol, LLC), AngelaShartrand (NCIIA) © Copyright 2013 - inXsol
4. 4. About the NSF Project  Research Question:  Can migrating a portion of the SET curriculum from instructor-led delivery to web-based delivery shorten the duration of courses and workshops and lead to significantly improved EE throughput while retaining (or increasing) the participant’s performance levels? Pre-Course Orientation EE Seminars CoachingFoundational Knowledge and Workshops One-on-One Entrepreneur Education Exercises and Simulations Online Training Instructor Led Instructor / Mentor © Copyright 2013 - inXsol
5. 5. Team inXsol – Awardee – Principal Investigator (Ryng) EnableVentures – Key Personnel – Supercoach® Curriculum Licensor Arizona State University – Learner Recruitment NCIIA – Assessment/Review Advisory Board – Included Other EE Leaders Electronic Reviewers – 23 World-Wide Reviewers © Copyright 2013 - inXsol
7. 7. Workshop Structure (4 Days) Session One Session Five Introductions, Ground Rules, Strategic Operations, Manufacturing, Management Planning and Staffing Plans Session Two Session Six Technology, Intellectual Property (IP), Financial Plans Product(s), start Manufacturing Plan Session Seven Session Three Executive Summary, Marketing and Sales Plans Dry Run of Final Presentation Session Four Session Eight Competition, Final Presentation to Panel, Strategic Alliances Considerations Follow-up Action Plan © Copyright 2013 - inXsol
8. 8. Which Exercises? Selection of Exercises  Multitude of exercises available Criteria (Working with Advisory Board)  Early in the workshop process  Potential to be stand alone or use limited instruction  Concise 30-40 minutes of seat time for the student 30-Second Elevator Pitch and 1-Page Strategic Business Plan selected to migrate to a blended environment © Copyright 2013 - inXsol
9. 9. Instructional Design Approach Instructional Design Strategy  Experiential Model See one…Do one…Teach one What are the essential components for the learner to understand?  Rubric Design How can we use technology to augment this process? © Copyright 2013 - inXsol