National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 6 Recommendations for Science Activation
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25569.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25569.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25569.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25569.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25569.
×
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2019. NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25569.
×
Page 77

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

REFERENCES ActKnowledge and the 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. 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. Azevedo, F.S. (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. Washington DC: National Science Teaching Association Press. 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. 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., & 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: Refs-1 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

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 non-expert audiences. Proceedings of National Academies of Sciences. 11 (Suppl 4):13614–20. 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-learning-agenda-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. . Refs-2 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

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., & Lee, C.D. (2014). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, Second Edition (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. (2016). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/23595. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018a). How People Learn II: Learners, Contexts, and Cultures. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/24783. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018b). Learning Through Citizen Science: Enhancing Opportunities by Design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (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. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018d). Visions into Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013–2022: A Midterm Review. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (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. (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/science-pink/s3fs- public/atoms/files/2010SciencePlan_TAGGED.pdf. Refs-3 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (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. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/9853/how-people-learn-brain-mind-experience-and-school-expanded- edition. National Research Council. (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. National Research Council. (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. National Research Council. (2008). NASA's Elementary and Secondary Education Program: Review and Critique. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/12190. National Research Council. (2010). New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/12951. National Research Council. (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 National Research Council. (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. National Research Council. (2012a). A Framework for K–12 Science 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. National Research Council. (2012b). Education for Life and Work: Developing Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century. Washington DC: National Academies Press. National Research Council. (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. National Research Council. (2013b). Review of the Draft 2014 Science Mission Directorate Science Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.17226/18609. .National Research Council. (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 Teaching Association. (2019). K–12 Science Standards Adoption. Retrieved from https://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx National Science and Technology Council. (2015). Social and Behavioral Sciences Team: Annual Report. Washington DC. National Science and Technology Council. (2018). Charting a Course for Success: America’s Strategy for STEM Education. Available: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/STEM- Education-Strategic-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. Refs-4 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

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. Next Generation Science Standards 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 at 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_DiversityInclusionCulturalAw areness_Overview.pdf. Russell, J.L., Meredith, J., Childs, J., Stein, M.K., and Prine, D.W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational 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. 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. Refs-5 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

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-public-school-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 ISL. Summative Evaluation. Corvallis, OR: 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. Refs-6 PREPUBLICATION COPY, UNCORRECTED PROOFS

Next: Appendix A: Science Activation Portfolio »
NASA's Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is one of the United States’ leading federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) agencies and plays an important role in the landscape of STEM education. In 2015, NASA’s Science Mission Directorate (SMD) created the Science Activation (SciAct) program to increase the overall coherence of SMD’s education efforts, to support more effective, sustainable, and efficient use of SMD science discoveries for education, and to enable NASA scientists and engineers to engage more effectively and efficiently in the STEM learning environment with learners of all ages. SciAct is now transitioning into its second round of funding, and it is beneficial to review the program’s portfolio and identify opportunities for improvement.

NASA’s Science Activation Program: Achievements and Opportunities

assesses SciAct’s efforts towards meeting its goals. The key objectives of SciAct are to enable STEM education, improve U.S. scientific literacy, advance national education goals, and leverage efforts through partnerships. This report describes and assesses the history, current status, and vision of the program and its projects. It also provides recommendations to enhance NASA’s efforts through the SciAct program.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!