Resources included in these libraries were submitted by ITEST projects or STELAR and are relevant to the work of the NSF ITEST Program. PDFs and/or URLs to the original resource are included in the resource description whenever possible. In some cases, full text publications are located behind publishers’ paywalls and a fee or membership to the third party site may be required for access. Permission for use must be requested through the publisher or author listed in each entry.
Going Beyond Hooked Participants: The Nibble-and- Drop Framework for Classifying Citizen Science Participation
PublicationsMany citizen science (CS) programs aim to grow and sustain a pool of enthusiastic participants who consistently contribute their efforts to a specific scientific endeavor. Consequently, much research has explored CS participants’ motivations and their relationship to participant recruitment and retention. However, much of this research has focused on actively participating citizen scientists. If researchers want to elucidate the relationship between participant factors (such as demographics and motivations) and participant retention, it is necessary to develop a more comprehensive picture of
Interest Development, Self-related Information Processing, and Practice
PublicationsEducators have a critical stake in supporting the development of interest—as the presence of interest benefits sustained engagement and learning. Neuroscientific research has shown that interest is distinct from, but overlapping with, self-related information processing, the personally relevant connections that a learner makes to content (e.g., mathematics). We propose that consideration of self-related information processing is critical for encouraging interest development in at least two ways. First, support for learners to make self-related connections to content may provide a basis for the
Research on Continuous Improvement: Exploring the Complexities of Managing Educational Change
PublicationsAs a result of the frustration with the dominant “What Works” paradigm of large-scale research-based improvement, practitioners, researchers, foundations, and policymakers are increasingly embracing a set of ideas and practices that can be collectively labeled continuous improvement (CI) methods. This chapter provides a comparative review of these methods, paying particular attention to CI methods’ intellectual influences, theories of action, and affordances and challenges in practice. We first map out and explore the shared intellectual forebears that CI methods draw on. We then discuss three
STEM Dreams in Motion: Episode 2 - Ralph Ngaboyimana
VideoSTEM Dreams in Motion: Stories of Resettled People Episode 2 - Ralph Ngaboyimana Sponsored by the National Science Foundation - Promoting Aspirations in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics through Youth and Family Engagement (Grant No. 2045306) In Partnership with Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College The Sidney Poitier New American Film School Producers: Philip Klucsarits & Eugene Judson Director & Cinematographer: Philip Klucsarits Editor & Post Production: Josh Belveal Additional Camera Operating & Lighting: Anze Su Contact: stemdreamsinmotion@gmail.com
U.S. Energy & Employment Jobs Report
Publications
STEM Rising
PublicationsThe Better Buildings Workforce Accelerator K-12 Resource Fact Sheet
Publications
Research on Continuous Improvement: Exploring the Complexities of Managing Educational Change
PublicationsAs a result of the frustration with the dominant “What Works” paradigm of large-scale research-based improvement, practitioners, researchers, foundations, and policymakers are increasingly embracing a set of ideas and practices that can be collectively labeled continuous improvement (CI) methods. This chapter provides a comparative review of these methods, paying particular attention to CI methods’ intellectual influences, theories of action, and affordances and challenges in practice. We first map out and explore the shared intellectual forebears that CI methods draw on. We then discuss three
Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness
PublicationsWhile research-practice partnerships have emerged as a promising means of creating and applying relevant research evidence in settings where young people grow and learn, we’ve lacked definition in terms of what constitutes an effective partnership and how RPPs, funders, and other stakeholders might gauge and demonstrate such effectiveness. Offering a clear picture of the common goals that cut across diverse types of partnerships, Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness outlines the elements that members of existing RPPs have reported are essential to their
CAREER: FRAMING AND REFRAMING AGENCY IN MAKING AND ENGINEERING (FRAME)
Instruments
What is the wrong theory protocol? The goal of this protocol is to support learners to take risks and understand the problem they are designing for. In this protocol, designers first briefly describe the design problem they are working on, then name the needs, constraints and requirements they identified. They are then asked to come up with the worst possible design, one that violates constraints and does not address needs, prior to generating good ideas.