References

ActKnowledge and Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. (2004). Theory of Change. Available: http://www.theoryofchange.org/pdf/Superwomen_Example.pdf.

American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2018). Ten University Fields with Highest Relative Share of Federal R&D, 2007–2017. Available: https://www.aaas.org/programs/r-d-budget-and-policy/rd-colleges-and-universities.

American Institute of Physics. (2018). Fiscal Year 2019 Appropriations Bills: STEM Education. Available: https://www.aip.org/fyi/2018/fy19-appropriations-bills-stem-education.

Archer, L., DeWitt, J., and Willis, B. (2014). Adolescent boys’ science aspirations: Masculinity, capital, and power. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(1), 1–30. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21122.

Archer, L., Dawson, E., DeWitt, J., Seakins, A., and Wong, B. (2015). Science capital: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending Bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(7), 922–948. Available: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21227.

Avraamidou, L., and Osborne, J. (2009). The role of narrative in communicating science. International Journal of Science Education, 31(12), 1683–1707.

Azevedo, F.S. (2011). Lines of practice: A practice-centered theory of interest relationships. Cognition and Instruction, 29(2), 147–184.

_______. (2018). An inquiry into the structure of situational interests. Science Education, 102(1), 108–127.

Bang M., and Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. 10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879.

Berry, J. (2012). Participation in STEM Activities and Initiatives. Available: https://www.chcoc.gov/content/participation-stem-activities-and-initiatives.

Besley, J., Dudo, A., and Storksdieck, M. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199–220.

Besley, J.C., Dudo, A., Yuan, S., and Ghannam, N.A. (2016). Qualitative Interviews with Science Communication Trainers about Communication Objectives and Goals. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1075547016645640.

Bevan, B. (2016). STEM Learning Ecologies: Relevant, Responsive, and Connected. Connected Science Learning. Available: http://csl.nsta.org/2016/03/stem-learning-ecologies.

Bevan, B., Calabrese Barton, A., and Garibay, C. (2018). Broadening Perspectives on Broadening Participation in STEM: Critical Perspectives on the Role of Science Engagement. Washington, DC: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education.

Brown, P. (1993). When the public knows better: Popular epidemiology challenges the system. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 35(8), 16–41.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21.

Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L.M., Grunow, A., and LeMahieu, P.G. (2015). Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Burgstahler, S. (2009). Universal Design of Instruction (UDI): Definition, Principles, Guidelines, and Examples. Seattle, WA: DO-IT. Available: https://www.washington.edu/doit/sites/default/files/atoms/files/UD_Instruction_05_26_15.pdf.

Business Dictionary. (2019). Vision Statement. Available: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/vision-statement.html.

Calabrese Barton, A., and Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin: Agency, identity, and learning in a green energy program. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.

Carlone, H.B., and Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 44(8), 1187–1218.

Ching, D., Santo, R., Hoadley, C., and Peppler, K. (2016). Not just a blip in someone’s life: Integrating brokering practices into out-of-school programming as a means of supporting and expanding youth futures. On the Horizon, 24(3), 296–312.

Coburn, C.E., and Russell, J.L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.

Coburn, C.E., Catterson, A.K., Higgs, J., Mertz, K., and Morel, R. (2013). Spread and Scale in the Digital Age: A Memo to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. Available: https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/spread_and_scale_in_a_digital_age_12-31-13_to_share.pdf.

Committee on STEM Education. (2013). The Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education: 5-Year Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: National Science Technology Council.

Cooper, R., Slavin, R.E., and Madden, N.A. (1998). Success for all: Improving the quality of implementation of whole-school change through the use of a national reform network. Education and Urban Society, 30(3), 385–408.

Culatta, R. (2012). From innovation clusters to datapalooza: Accelerating innovation in educational technology. Educause Review, 47(6), 24–28.

Dahlstrom, M.J. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 11(Suppl 4), 13614–13620.

Elmesky, R., and Tobin, K. (2005). Expanding our understandings of urban science education by expanding the roles of students as researchers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(7), 807–828.

Engeström, Y. (1991). Non scolae sed vitae discimus: Toward overcoming the encapsulation of school learning. Learning and Instruction, 1(3), 243–259.

Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology & Human Values, 20(4), 408–437.

Frickel, S., Gibbon, S., Howard, J., Kempner, J., Ottinger, G., and Hess, D.J. (2010). Undone science: Charting social movement and civil society challenges to research agenda setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(4), 444–473.

Funnell, S.C., and Rogers, P.J. (2011). Purposeful Program Theory: Effective Use of Theories of Change and Logic Models. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally-responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53(2), 106–116.

González, N., Moll, L.C., and Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of Knowledge: Theorizing Practices in Households, Communities, and Classrooms. New York: Routledge.

Graesser, A.C., and Ottati, V. (1995). Why stories? Some evidence, questions, and challenges. Knowledge and Memory: The Real Story, 8, 121–132.

Granovskiy, B. (2018). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: An overview. Congressional Research Service. Available: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45223.pdf.

Green, M.C. (2006). Narratives and cancer communication. Journal of Communications, 56(Suppl 1), S163–S183.

Grogan, M. (1999). Equity/equality issues of gender, race, and class. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(4), 518–536.

Gutiérrez, K.D., and Jurow, A.S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598.

Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41–85.

Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., and Watkins, S.C. (2013). Connected Learning: An Agenda for Research and Design. Digital Media and Learning Research Hub. Available: https://dmlhub.net/publications/connected-learningagenda-for-research-and-design/index.html.

Johnson, J. (2019). Aligning Institutional Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Accessibility Priorities with Grantmaking Practices. Presentation to the Committee on Assessing Science Activation at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Available: https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_193448.pdf.

Jurow, A.S., Hall, R., and Ma, J.Y. (2008). Expanding the disciplinary expertise of a middle school mathematics classroom: Re-contextualizing student models in conversations with visiting specialists. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(3), 338–380.

Kania, J., and Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Available: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/collective_impact.

Kinchy, A., Jalbert, K., and Lyons, J. (2014). What is volunteer water monitoring good for? Fracking and the plural logics of participatory science. Political Power and Social Theory, 27(2), 259–289.

Kohl, H. (1992). I won’t learn from you! Thoughts on the role of assent in learning. Rethinking Schools, 7(1), 16–17.

Leshner, A. (2012). Capably communicating science. Science, 337(6096), 777.

Lieberman, A., and Wood, D. (2003). Inside the National Writing Project: Connecting Network Learning and Classroom Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.

Malone, K.R., and Barabino, G. (2009). Narrations of race in STEM research settings: Identity formation and its discontents. Science Education, 93(3), 485–510.

McLaughlin, M.W., and O’Brien-Strain, M. (2008). The Youth Data Archive: Integrating data to assess social settings in a societal sector framework. In M. Shinn and H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward Positive Youth Development: Transforming Schools and Community Programs (pp. 313–332). New York: Oxford University Press.

McNeill, K.L., Katsh-Singer, R., and Pelletier, P. (2015). Assessing science practices: Moving your class along a continuum. Science Scope, 39(4), 21–28.

Miller, J.D. (1998). The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Understanding of Science, 7(3), 203–223. Available: https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/7/3/001.

Morariu, J. (2012). The Grantmaker’s Role in Theory of Change. Innovation Network. Available: https://www.innonet.org/media/tear_sheet_toc-innovation_network.pdf.

Nasir, N.S., Rosebery, A.S., Warren, B., and Lee, C.D. (2014). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 686–706). Cambridge University Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139519526.041.

National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM Integration in K–12 Education: Status, Prospects, and an Agenda for Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18612/stem-integration-in-k-12-education-status-prospects-and-an.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine [NASEM]. (2016). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/23595.

_______. (2017). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

_______. (2018a). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/24783.

_______. (2018b). Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

_______. (2018c). Thriving on Our Changing Planet: A Decadal Strategy for Earth Observation from Space. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/24938.

_______. (2018d). Visions into Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022: A Midterm Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

_______. (2019). Science and Engineering for Grades 6–12: Investigation and Design at the Center. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2010). 2010 Science Plan for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters. Available: https://smd-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/sciencepink/s3fs-public/atoms/files/2010SciencePlan_TAGGED.pdf.

_______. (2015). NASA Science Mission Directorate Science Education Cooperative Agreement Notice. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Headquarters. Available: https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid=446561/solicitationId=%7BAC77E7D1-79AD-07F7-28C0-43E5105C5436%7D/viewSolicitationDocument=1/SE%20CAN%20final_Amend1.pdf.

National Research Council (NRC). (2000). HowPeopleLearn: Brain, Mind, Experience, andSchool: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-brain-mind-experience-and-school-expanded-edition.

_______. (2006). America’s Lab Report: Investigations in High School Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11311/americas-lab-report-investigations-in-high-school-science.

_______. (2007). Taking Science to School: Learning and Teaching Science in Grades K–8. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/11625.

_______. (2008). NASA’s Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Review and Critique. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

_______. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/12190.

_______. (2010). New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/12951.

_______. (2011a). Recapturing a Future for Space Exploration: Life and Physical Sciences Research for a New Era. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/13048.

_______. (2011b). Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/13117.

_______. (2012a). AFrameworkfor K–12Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13165/a-framework-for-k-12-science-education-practices-crosscutting-concepts.

_______. (2012b). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

_______. (2013a). Preparing the Next Generation of Earth Scientists: An Examination of Federal Education and Training Programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/18369.

_______. (2013b). Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/18609.

_______. (2015). Identifying and Supporting Productive STEM Programs in Out-of-School Settings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/21740.

National Science and Technology Council. (2015). Social and Behavioral Sciences Team: Annual Report. Washington DC.

_______. (2018). Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM-EducationStrategic-Plan-2018.pdf.

National Science Board. (2018). Science and Engineering Indicators 2018. NSB-2018-1. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/indicators.

National Science Teaching Association. (2019). K–12 Science Standards Adoption. Available: https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx.

Nelson, I. A. (2009). The differential role of youth development program participation for Latina/o adolescents. Afterschool Matters, 8, 20–33.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

O’Day. J.A., and Smith M.S. (2016). Quality and equality in American education: Systemic problems, systemic solutions. In I. Kirsch and H. Braun (Eds.), The Dynamics of Opportunity in America (pp. 297–358). Springer Open Press. Available: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-319-25991-8.

Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2017). Fiscal Year 2019 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/ostp/fy2019-administration-research-development-budget-priorities.pdf.

Parsons, E., and Turner, K. (2014). The importance of history in the racial inequality and racial inequity in education: New Orleans as a case example. Negro Educational Review, 65, 99–113.

Pinkard, N. (2019). Freedom of movement: Defining, researching, and designing the components of a healthy learning ecosystem. Human Development, 62(1-2), 1–26.

Powell, W.W., and Grodal, S. (2005). Networks of innovators. In J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery, and R.R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation (pp. 56–85). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Provan, K.G., Fish, A., and Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516.

Puritty, C., Strickland, L.R., Alia, E., Blonder, B., Klein, E., Kohl, M.T., McGee, E., Quinatana, M., Ridley, R.E., Tellman, B., and Gerber, L.R. (2017). Without inclusion, diversity initiatives may not be enough. Science, 357(6356), 1101–1102.

Reisman, A., and Gienapp, A. (2004). Theory of Change: A Practical Tool for Action, Results and Learning. Organizational Research Services. Available: http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/cc2977k440.pdf.

Renninger, K.A., and Bachrach, J.E. (2015). Studying triggers for interest and engagement using observational methods. Educational Psychologist, 50(1), 58–69.

Rogers, E.M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Rose, D. (2000). Universal design for learning. Journal of Special Education Technology, 15(3), 45–49.

Ruggs, E., and Hebl, M. (2012). Literature overview: Diversity, inclusion, and cultural awareness for classroom and outreach education. Apply Research to Practice (ARP) Resources. Available: https://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/ARPAbstracts/DiversityInclusion/ARP_DiversityInclusionCulturalAwareness_Overview.pdf.

Russell, J.L., Meredith, J., Childs, J., Stein, M.K., and Prine, D.W. (2015). Designing interorganizational networks to implement education reform: An analysis of state Race to the Top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 92–112.

Santo, R. (2017). Working Open in the Hive: How Informal Education Organizations Learn, Collaborate, and Innovate in Networks. Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University.

Santo, R., Peppler, K., Ching, D., Hoadley, C. (2015). Maybe a maker space? Organizational learning about maker education within a regional out-of-school network. Proceedings of FabLearn: Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education. Stanford, CA.

Santo, R., Ching, D., Hoadley, C.M., and Peppler, K.A. (2016). Working in the open: Lessons from open source on building innovation networks in education. On the Horizon, 24(3), 280–295.

Santo, R., Ching, D., Peppler, K., and Hoadley, C. (2017). Messy, sprawling, and open: Research–practice partnership methodologies for working in distributed interorganizational networks. In B. Bevan and W.R. Penuel (Eds.), Connecting Research and Practice for Educational Improvement (pp. 100-118). New York: Routledge.

Sherbin, L., and Rashid, R. (2017). Diversity doesn’t stick without inclusion. Harvard Business Review. Available: https://hbr.org/2017/02/diversity-doesnt-stick-without-inclusion.

Stevens, H. (2015). Public schools growing more diverse, and we all benefit. Chicago Tribune. Available: https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-racial-diverse-publicschool-balancing-20150902-column.html.

Storksdieck, M., Stylinski, C., and Canzoneri, N. (2017). The Impact of Portal to the Public: Creating an Infrastructure for Engaging Scientists in Informal Science Education: Summative Evaluation. Corvallis: Oregon State University.

Tödtling, F., and Trippl, M. (2005). One size fits all?: Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy, 34(8), 1203–1219.

Traphagen, K., and Traill, S. (2014). How Cross-Sector Collaborations Are Advancing STEM Learning. Palo Alto, CA: The Noyce Foundation. Available: http://www.noycefdn.org/documents/STEM_ECOSYSTEMS_REPORT_EXECSUM_140128.pdf.

Von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by user communities: Learning from open-source software. MIT Sloan Management Review, 42(4), 82.

Vossoughi, S., and Vakil, S. (2018). Toward what ends? A critical analysis of militarism, equity, and STEM education. In A.I. Ali and T.L. Buenavista (Eds.), Education at War: The Fight for Students of Color in America’s Public Schools (pp. 117–140). New York: Fordham University Press.

Whitmarsh, L. (2009). What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming.” Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 401–420.