that its main beneficiaries are “vulnerable communities that can be rural, urban ormixed, and face social, environmental and economic problems.”[39] The main objective of theecosystem is to “generate transformations in the quality of life of vulnerable communitiesthrough collaboration between diverse actors (academic, private, social, etc.) and the applicationof engineering following frameworks of social justice, equity and sustainability, and the socialappropriation of knowledge as a bridge between technical solutions and community needs.” [39]The fundamental principles of the landscape are:o Respect for the diversity of knowledge and dialogue of knowledge.o Empathy, professional ethics and cooperation.o Co-creation: collaborative solutions
liaisons to onboard them to the project, checked in regularly, and provided opportunitiesfor survey instrument feedback. Several campuses experienced shutdowns and disturbances due to protests during thefour-week period the survey was open. During those periods of heightened institutional response,survey release dates were staggered. Each campus was offered an equal number of days tocomplete the survey.3. Participants and procedures This study followed ethical procedures approved by the Institutional Review Boards atUniversity of California, Santa Cruz, where data was collected and housed (HS-FY2024-218),and the University of California, Los Angeles (IRB#24-000478). The fully anonymous surveywas open to self-identified women graduate
ChemE educators seekinnovative ways to engage and retain students, interventions like PORPs offer valuable insightsinto how contextualized learning can shape students’ perceptions of the field and their futurecareer prospects.Institutional Review Board ConsiderationsThis study, titled “Impact of People-Oriented Recitation Problems,” was reviewed anddetermined to be exempt under the 2018 Common Rule 45 CFR 46.104.d by the CarnegieMellon University Review Board (IRB). The exemption was granted on August 26, 2024, undercategories (1) educational settings and (2)(i)-(iii) tests, surveys, interviews, or observation.Limited IRB review was conducted where necessary, ensuring compliance with ethical researchstandards. The study's IRB determination is
and use those insights to drive informed decisions. ● Recognize ethical considerations relevant to data gathering and data visualization. 6. Maximizing the ● Describe the impact level of your research, including listing key results Impact of Your and identifying the groups most interested in those results. Research ● List a variety of options for sharing undergraduate research, including both traditional academic venues (conferences, journal articles) as well as venues for reaching audiences outside of the academic context. ● Identify the venues that might be most appropriate for
suggestsalternative perspectives or analogies to inspire new ideas and solutions based on the framing andreframing of human inputs. This conversational interface allows for a fluid exchange of ideasbetween designer and AI which creates interactive dialogue that helps to create novel conceptsthat may not be possible though traditional DM (10).There are numerous drawbacks associated with GenAI that are noted throughout the literature. Itcan be non-deterministic, uncontrollable, or overly generic which means that many trials need tobe taken to reach a desired outcome (5). It is also a challenge to incorporate into the curriculumas educators need to be trained and educational frameworks need to be updated (8, 11, 12).Additionally, there are ethical concerns with
a detailed description for each category and achievement level was given. Thecomplete rubric is provided in Appendix B.The EME as a class project is tied to ABET Student Outcome Three: “an ability to communicateeffectively with a range of audiences” and Seven “an ability to acquire and apply new knowledgeas needed, using appropriate learning strategies” [22]. For fall 2025, ABET SO4 (“an ability torecognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informedjudgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic,environmental, and societal contexts”) will be tied to the EME. For SO3, science communicationas a tangible skill feeds into an engineer’s ability to create value for
the states covered by the grant) were invited toparticipate. All project recruitment, activities, and data analysis followed the requirements of thegoverning ethics review board. The PL began with a 5-day-long intensive online summer sessioncontaining both synchronous and asynchronous activities designed to introduce teachers toNGSS aligned science and engineering instruction. Following the summer PL, Serenaparticipated in four additional online engineering-focused PL sessions and volunteered to join anengineering learning community (ELC) with other rural elementary teachers to further supportthe development and implementation of a community connected engineering lesson using theCRED Framework. Serena was the only ELC member whose students
following years. In August 2024, the program welcomed 300 public and privatehigh school students of all genders from different Lebanese regions, to tackle the country’s mostpressing challenges through engineering and design. This study was conducted during the 2024summer program.5. Methods5.1 Data CollectionWith the target sample being the high school participants in the summer program, the data for thisstudy were collected through an online survey disseminated after the program. The survey wasthoroughly developed and tested by research team members to cover key aspects of the study. Thedata was collected over two weeks after the study received the Institutional Review Board (IRB)approval ensuring all ethical standards were met. The consent of
” is not a valuable use of time, especially when other jobrequirements and expectations are more pressing.Furthermore, there is a burden to ensure and sometimes prove that new material is in factrelevant to the course and does not represent a dilution of the required course material. Thisobstacle is particularly salient when interdisciplinary material is considered. Finding a place formeaningful engagement with concepts like engineering ethics and environmental justice isdifficult when courses are already filled with technical content. If there is no dedicated course forsuch interdisciplinary material, it is easy for it to be pushed to the side.The authors have not encountered institutional opposition; rather, it is institutional inertia
schools were within the second, third,and fifth quintiles of LOI rankings; higher rankings on the LOI indicate schools exhibitinggreater resource constraints. Table 1 shares teacher aliases as well as their years of experience,their respective Discovery subjects, and associated school. Interview protocols were approved bythe University of Toronto Research Ethics Board (protocol #00047071); each teacher providedwritten informed consent prior to participation.2.3 Teacher interviewsAll interviews followed a prescribed list of questions that were organized sequentially into thefollowing sections: (i) student engagement in both regular classroom and Discovery activities;(ii) relative student performance in Discovery-deliverables versus other
conversations, a director at LightHouse connected Mouallem toDougherty, who currently directs accessible user experience projects at the non-profit. Mouallemand the LightHouse team, including Dougherty, then iterated on drafting a Memorandum ofUnderstanding (MOU). The MOU covered the purpose and the scope of the project, itsanticipated outcomes, ethical considerations, deliverables, dissemination plan, evaluation steps,timeline, and budget. Next, the MOU was expanded to discuss the shared goals of the project forboth the Stanford research team and LightHouse, the resulting benefits from the project for bothentities, a plan for exchanging and sharing resources and expertise, and a timeline of theinvolvement of each entity and their responsibilities at