2

Background and Context

To make clear recommendations for the future of the Science Activation program (SciAct), the committee first acknowledged the need to understand SciAct’s considerable history, as well as the context in which it currently operates. This chapter offers a brief programmatic history of SciAct and briefly describes the current SciAct 2.0 portfolio. We then turn to a description of the current national STEM education landscape to contextualize our recommendations for SciAct’s next iteration.

HISTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SCIENCE ACTIVATION PROGRAM

SciAct was established in 2015 as part of National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s) Science Mission Directorate (SMD), “to connect NASA science with diverse learners of all ages in ways that activate minds and promote a deeper understanding of our world and beyond.”¹ The current top-level objectives of SciAct were established at that time:

• Enable STEM education;
• Improve U.S. scientific literacy;
• Advance national education goals; and
• Leverage efforts through partnerships.

___________________

¹ https://science.nasa.gov/learn/about-science-activation/

SciAct emerged as a new model in the agency to promote and support effective engagement of STEM learners of all ages with SMD science projects by leveraging NASA’s science content, data, and experts (i.e., NASA-funded scientists and engineers). The first SciAct portfolio (SciAct 1.0) consisted of 27 projects that were funded for five years (2015–2020), via a competitive, standalone Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN). In 2019, NASA asked the Board on Science Education at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) to review the SciAct 1.0 portfolio and make recommendations to improve the program as it entered its second funding cycle. To this end, the committee that authored the 2020 National Academies assessment (NASEM, 2020) identified 15 conclusions and made 7 recommendations for SciAct 2.0 (see Chapter 3 for more detail about the 2020 National Academies assessment). In 2020, informed by the 2020 National Academies assessment, SciAct extended 18 SciAct 1.0 projects for an additional five years via a second competitive CAN, creating SciAct 2.0 (2021–2025); 9 of the original 27 projects did not continue to receive funding into SciAct 2.0. Three of the projects that were extended from SciAct 1.0 ended in 2022.

SciAct also invited additional teams to propose projects to complement continuing SciAct 2.0 projects via the Research Opportunities in Space and Earth Sciences (ROSES) omnibus solicitation (ROSES-2020 E.6 Science Activation Program Integration). The ROSES-2020 solicitation highlighted two specific foci for new projects. These foci were informed by the 2020 National Academies assessment:

• Engaging subject matter experts (SMEs), especially NASA employees and NASA-funded SMEs, with learners, content producers, and audience-focused disseminators within the SciAct portfolio.
• Broadening participation of underrepresented and underserved learners to maximize advancement of knowledge.

Nine additional projects were added to the SciAct 2.0 portfolio via the ROSES-2020 solicitation. To further address SciAct priority areas, a second ROSES solicitation (ROSES-2021 F.6 Science Activation Program Integration²) was released in 2021, with specific focus areas including the following:

• Heliophysics content, including the annular (2023) and total (2024) solar eclipses.
• Dissemination of SMD assets (i.e., science content and data, space and airborne platforms, and scientific and technical personnel) into communities or specific audience networks.

___________________

² https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/solicitations/summary!init.do?solId=%7B70022F64-A0FD-0B3D-7FFA-FCC298C068E6%7D&path=open

• Integration of data into science learning, in alignment with SMD’s Strategy for Data Management and Computing for Groundbreaking Science,³ and NASA’s Science Data Overview.⁴

The ROSES-2021 competition resulted in 13 additional SciAct 2.0 cooperative awards to projects around the country.

The SciAct 2.0 portfolio includes 37 active projects that vary in science content area, audience, educational setting, and delivery model, as well as the specific top-level and mid-level program objectives addressed (NASA, n.d.). SciAct 2.0 projects engage a range of audiences, with some serving broad audiences through science centers, mobile applications/websites, citizen science, and libraries; others focus on topics such as professional development for educators across a variety of formal and informal education settings, learning experiences and/or curricula for students, engagement workshops for planetary science SMEs, or bringing oceanography and STEM opportunities to Hispanic/Latinx communities through internship programs. SciAct 2.0 principal investigators (PIs)⁵ come from colleges/universities (n = 17), non-profit organizations (n = 13), NASA centers (n = 4), and informal science institutions (n = 3; i.e., museums, science centers, and botanic gardens).

In addition to the above-named projects, SciAct 2.0 also funds 13 NASA-led projects called infrastructure projects, which CAN/ROSES-funded SciAct projects are encouraged to leverage in their work when possible and as appropriate. Infrastructure projects represent an array of organizations and types of public engagement, including the Global Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE),⁶ Night Sky Network,⁷ NASA Astro Camp,⁸ and Astronomy Picture of the Day.⁹ SciAct provides at least some funding for each of these infrastructure projects, commensurate with their role/applicability to SciAct objectives. Most infrastructure projects have been active for decades and are stand-alone projects outside of SciAct. Although infrastructure projects are considered part of SciAct, they are not expected to leverage NASA assets the same way traditionally funded SciAct projects do.

___________________

³ https://smd-cms.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/KnezekSDMWGStrategyUpdatetoAPACMarch2020.pdf

⁴ https://science.data.nasa.gov/nasa-science-data-overview/

⁵ Throughout the report, “SciAct PIs” refers to the principal investigators leading the individual projects that comprise the SciAct portfolio.

⁶ https://www.globe.gov/

⁷ https://nightsky.jpl.nasa.gov/

⁸ https://www.nasa.gov/stennis/stem-engagement-at-stennis/nasa-accp/

⁹ https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

It is important to note that SciAct is designed to function as a network of projects: that is, after awards are made, projects are encouraged to collaborate and learn from one another, leverage one another’s strengths, and generally cohere in support of the portfolio’s goals. NASA intends SciAct programming to take a “collective impact” approach: by building a portfolio comprised of unique but complementary projects, SciAct can leverage synergies across the suite of projects to better meet its objectives. The function of this network has evolved over time, largely in response to the 2020 National Academies assessment’s recommendations (see Chapter 3 for discussion of those recommendations and SciAct’s response).

CONTEXT OF THE SCIENCE ACTIVATION PROGRAM WITHIN NASA AND COMPARED WITH SIMILAR FUNDING PROGRAMS

As noted above, SciAct is located in NASA’s SMD and is separate from the four programs housed in NASA’s Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM).¹⁰ While run entirely independently of SciAct, OSTEM’s strategic goals are complementary to SciAct’s top-level objectives. OSTEM’s goals include the following:¹¹

• Attract diverse groups of students to STEM through learning opportunities that spark interest and provide connections to NASA’s mission and work.
• Create unique opportunities for a diverse set of students to contribute to NASA’s work in exploration and discovery.
• Build a diverse future STEM workforce by engaging students in authentic learning experiences with NASA’s people, content, and facilities.

In general, OSTEM programs focus on attracting and preparing students for the STEM workforce, whereas SciAct prioritizes collaborative projects that leverage NASA assets to further STEM education and scientific literacy broadly. Another primary difference between OSTEM and SciAct is that SciAct has intentionally created a collaborative learning community of projects, aiming to collectively achieve desired SciAct outcomes.

SciAct also differs from other federally funded STEM education programs at science agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF), for example, provides substantial funding for STEM education through

___________________

¹⁰ OSTEM includes Next Gen STEM, National Space Grant College and Fellowship Project, Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, and Minority University Research and Education Project; https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/internship-programs/

¹¹ https://www.nasa.gov/learning-resources/stem-engagement/

programs such as the Innovative Technology Experiences for Students and Teachers,¹² NSF Discovery Research PreK–12,¹³ and NSF Advancing Informal STEM Learning (AISL).¹⁴ However, unlike SciAct, these programs are primarily designed to fund research projects. They also fund a broad array of topics in STEM, in contrast to SciAct’s focus on NASA-related science.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s portfolio of education programs more closely resembles SciAct’s portfolio; however, it does not employ a “collective impact” approach. Indeed, SciAct’s collective impact approach stands out among STEM education funding programs in federal agencies: although NSF’s Eddie Bernice Johnson Inclusion across the Nation of Communities of Learners of Underrepresented Discoverers in Engineering and Science Initiative¹⁵ also adopted a collective impact model, its focus is primarily on transforming education and career pathways to broaden participation in science and engineering rather than on connecting learners to the science assets of the agency.

NATIONAL STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE

To provide SciAct with guidance to inform the future portfolio, the committee considered trends in the current STEM education landscape that intersect with SciAct priorities and that could inform improvements. We identified three key areas in which new developments in STEM education are relevant to SciAct: equity in STEM education, insights from STEM education research, and the evolving nature of the science/research enterprise. In the sections below, we discuss the latest developments in each of these areas and consider implications for SciAct.

Expanding Notions of Equity in PreK–12 STEM Education and Learning

As discussed in Chapter 3, one of the major themes of the 2020 National Academies assessment was SciAct’s commitment to “broadening participation,” or improving equitable involvement in STEM learning and engagement opportunities. Many of the 2020 National Academies assessment’s recommendations focused on this theme, and SciAct made a series of choices to support broadening participation efforts (see Chapter 3 for discussion of SciAct’s response to the 2020 National Academies assessment). Since 2020, however, the field of education has changed dramatically

___________________

¹² https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/itest-innovative-technology-experiences-students-teachers

¹³ https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/drk-12-discovery-research-prek-12

¹⁴ https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/aisl-advancing-informal-stem-learning

¹⁵ https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/nsfs-eddie-bernice-johnson-inclusion-across-nation

in terms of “broadening participation” in STEM. Broadening participation, which involves increasing the demographic diversity of STEM participants, is now seen as an aspect of the larger goal of achieving equity in STEM learning experiences.

The shift toward a focus on equity rather than on increasing demographic diversity (i.e., counting the number of people from certain backgrounds enrolled in a program) has emerged from the recognition that historical underrepresentation of select demographic groups in STEM results from deep structural inequities in both the education system and in STEM workplaces. A variety of factors shape individuals’ access to STEM education and engagement opportunities and their subsequent experiences. Working toward equity illustrates a recognition of the multiple barriers that might block people from pursuing STEM fields and the related structural and programmatic changes that could promote the success of STEM learners regardless of their backgrounds.

This consideration of equity has been taken up across the broader STEM education community; however, relevant to this report, what would it mean for SciAct to pursue equity goals? In 2024, education policymaking demands a sophisticated, multi-layered understanding of equity and what enacting equity looks like. To support SciAct in understanding how to pursue equity, the committee consulted Equity in K–12 STEM Education: Framing Decisions for the Future (NASEM, 2024).

Equity in STEM education is not a singular goal but an ongoing process requiring intentional decision making and action toward addressing and disrupting existing inequities and envisioning a more equitable future. Given the specific histories and contexts of various schools, districts, communities, regions, and STEM education generally, equity-related goals and strategies for achieving them may vary substantially and may also change over time.

For SciAct, this means that education decision makers (i.e., SciAct leadership, SciAct PIs, and SciAct project staff¹⁶) have the opportunity to interpret and enact decisions to advance equity in their programs in ways that reflect the priorities of SciAct’s leadership, project leaders and staff, and the learners and communities with which SciAct engages. Steps toward equity in SciAct will necessitate an understanding of the policies, key actors, and potential resources within each individual project context, to support each project’s specific equity goals. Simultaneously, consequential decision making for increasing equity at both the portfolio and individual project levels involves helping SciAct leadership and project staff balance short-term gains with a vision for, and strategic action toward, long-term and

___________________

¹⁶ Throughout the report, the term “project staff” refers to staff members employed by individual projects in the SciAct portfolio.

continuous change. In SciAct 2.0, different stakeholders employ different ways of thinking about equity in STEM education. A clear, consistent vision for an equitable SciAct will help SciAct leadership and project staff realize SciAct’s equity goals and will help orient ongoing design and implementation decisions toward meeting those goals.

Equity in K–12 STEM Education: Framing Decisions for the Future also identifies a series of equity frames to help decision makers articulate short- and long-term equity goals and make policy and practice decisions (NASEM, 2024). By viewing these decision-making frames in concert, it is clear that pursuing equity in STEM goes beyond expanding access to STEM education opportunities. Rather, equity work often involves addressing programming content, as well as considering how individual and community participants understand themselves in relationship to STEM. In short, to pursue equity goals, SciAct leadership and project staff will greatly benefit from a clear vision for a future equitable project or portfolio. Chapter 4 considers how SciAct leadership might help projects leverage community-based approaches to support both portfolio- and project-level equity goals.

Insights from STEM Education Research

A major focus of the 2020 National Academies assessment was the importance of centering evidence-based approaches to STEM learning in the design and implementation of both individual SciAct projects and the portfolio as a whole. The 2020 National Academies assessment described a suite of research-based STEM learning principles (NASEM, 2020, pp. 56–63). The 2020 committee identified three principles of STEM learning as critical to SciAct’s work:

• Proficiency in STEM disciplines goes beyond simply learning content. Instead, it involves engaging people with the practices, language, and tools of the discipline (NASEM, 2018a).
• Research demonstrates that learners’ interests, experiences, and concerns play pivotal roles in motivating their decisions to participate in learning activities (NASEM, 2018a).
• STEM learning occurs across a broad constellation of settings, timeframes, and experiences (National Research Council, 2006, 2009), often referred to as the STEM learning ecosystem.

Since the National Academies 2020 assessment, additional evidence on supporting STEM learning has emerged, and this evidence can be leveraged to support SciAct. For example, Science and Engineering in Preschool Through Elementary Grades: The Brilliance of Children and the Strengths of Educators (NASEM, 2022) focused on strengthening STEM education

experiences in younger grades. That report posited four “big ideas” to help conceptualize STEM learning: (1) learning is a social and cultural process; (2) learning involves identity formation; (3) learning occurs across cultural contexts; and (4) teaching and learning are not “neutral” because they are shaped by social and political forces. The report posits that these four ideas are central to understanding both the core commonalities and the broad variations in how individuals learn.

This committee noted that the importance of identity formation is missing from the discussion of STEM learning in the 2020 National Academies assessment of SciAct. Indeed, research increasingly demonstrates that STEM learning is inextricably linked to participants’ identities—that is, whether participants see themselves as able to do STEM, see their communities as valuable to STEM, and see their communities represented in STEM knowledge generation (Nolen et al., 2011; Oyserman & Destin, 2010). Ultimately, how and what participants learn relates to how they see themselves, the kinds of people they want to become, and the people they can be in learning contexts (Hand & Gresalfi, 2015).

Viewing learning as identity formation means that science and engineering educators’ work is to nurture humans, not only to nurture humans’ minds. Science and engineering identity development have been documented among elementary-aged youth (Kane, 2012; Tai et al., 2006) and even among younger children in their play choices (Rowe & Neitzel, 2010) and in the kinds of science or engineering engagement families provide (Pattison et al., 2020). In a study of 58 amateur adult astronomers and 49 birders, Jones and colleagues (2017) found that many hobbyists’ lifelong science interests began in childhood, shaped by family members and the social capital they provided through science-related leisure activities. Lifelong learning in these hobbies is an indicator of sustained science identity work (Bell et al., 2012). (NASEM, 2022, p. 61)

Supporting STEM learning is central to SciAct’s mission: indeed, three of SciAct’s top-level objectives involve supporting participants’ learning in STEM (i.e., enable STEM education, improve U.S. scientific literacy, and advance national education goals). Expanding access to programming is not enough to further these top-level objectives: as the 2020 National Academies assessment notes, the design and implementation of meaningful learning opportunities requires SciAct leadership and project staff to explicitly determine how to engage and support all participants in their learning experiences. Given the role that identity formation plays in supporting both engagement in and learning from STEM experiences, the committee recognizes that identity formation is in fact a central tenet of meeting the three STEM learning goals identified above. For more on the role of identity in supporting participants’ STEM learning experiences, see Chapter 4.

Expanding Considerations of Science

In considering how to support SciAct’s continued development, the committee held the grounding assumption that, at its core, SciAct aims to help the public connect with and engage in the U.S. scientific enterprise. Thus, it is important for SciAct to consider the changing nature of this enterprise as the scientific community increasingly recognizes the importance of connecting with and learning from non-scientists, valuing diverse expertise, and working in collaboration with local communities.

Federal investment in scientific research and education increasingly emphasizes impactful and equitable societal outcomes (Berhe, 2023; Brenninkmeijer, 2022; NASA, 2023b; National Institutes of Health, 2023; National Science Foundation, 2022). Calls for community-engaged scientific research have increased—that is, research that brings together policymakers, researchers, community leaders, and others who collaborate to identify evidence needs, combine diverse forms of knowledge and expertise, and use evidence to accomplish shared goals. Across disciplines, a growing number of scholars is entering academia to affect societal change, often through policy or community partnerships (Finnerty et al., 2024; Villegas et al., 2007).

Both historically and in the current sociopolitical context, societally impactful, community-engaged research broadens participation in knowledge production (Stoecker, 2003), bridges the gap between research and practice (Balazs & Morello-Frosch, 2013), and leverages research to advance social justice (Tuck & Guishard, 2013). “Public scholarship” promotes similar goals, by “generating, transmitting, applying, and preserving knowledge for the direct benefit of external audiences in ways that are consistent with University and unit missions” (Michigan State University, 1993, p. 13). Community-engaged research can be identified by five main approaches:

1. Dialogue and deliberation: Public discussion and deliberation regarding the intersection of societal issues with science, technology, and innovation.
2. Community-driven citizen science: Projects that address community interests and questions using research approaches co-developed by non-professional scientists.
3. Civic engagement and policymaking: Projects that use research as an input for collective action and policy and governance decisions to advance communities’ goals.
4. Open innovation: Open challenges, competitions, and calls to action that use science and technology to solve difficult problems.
5. Participatory research: Community participation in the design and implementation of research initiatives (Association of Science and Technology Centers, 2024).

Given SciAct’s commitment to connecting the public with NASA science and the powerful role that communities can play in supporting science learning and engagement, the committee recognizes the importance of helping SciAct develop effective, mutually beneficial approaches to future work with communities. Chapter 4 discusses how SciAct can employ community-based approaches to meet its fourth objective, leveraging efforts through partnerships, as well as to support projects currently engaged in community-facing work.

SUMMARY

This chapter describes the status of SciAct 2.0, along with the STEM education background and context within which SciAct 2.0 exists. As noted above, the 37 SciAct 2.0 projects cover vastly different science content areas, types of participants, educational settings, and delivery modes. As discussed in Chapter 3, each of these 37 projects is designed to pursue one or more of nine programmatic objectives, and each project exists against the evolving backdrop of science and education in the United States.

With this landscape in mind, the committee identified three key areas in which new developments in STEM education are relevant to SciAct: equity in STEM education, insights from STEM education research, and the evolving nature of the science/research enterprise. Since the 2020 National Academies assessment, research has developed in relationship to the term “broadening participation,” and education scholarship has codified four “big ideas” for understanding how individuals learn in STEM: (1) learning is a social and cultural process; (2) learning involves identity formation; (3) learning occurs across cultural contexts; and (4) teaching and learning are not “neutral” because they are shaped by social and political forces. Lastly, we discussed the changing nature of the scientific research enterprise as the scientific community increasingly recognizes the importance of connecting with and learning from non-scientists, valuing diverse expertise, and working in collaboration with local communities. Overall, this chapter sets the stage for the committee’s assessment of SciAct 2.0: by understanding both the programmatic history of SciAct, as well as the current landscape of STEM education, we can orient our recommendations for SciAct 3.0.