Civic Engagement, Graduate Education, and the Broader Impacts Criterion of the National Science Foundation

Abstract

The National Science Foundation (NSF)

Leveraging a University to Create Local Equity-Oriented K–12 Learning Opportunities: A Conversation Starter

“…We see our work as a tiny part of a much broader discussion about the role of higher education in contributing locally, including via funders' BI requirements and education grant streams, in combination with other crucial forms of local community-engaged research and teaching, financial investment, educator preparation, and P-20 partnership underway on many campuses. Regarding STEM and BI specifically, many others have called for campus contributions to reach often-excluded local participants (Komoroske et al, 2015;Lima, 2017;Woodson et al, 2021) and flagged the benefits of collaboration with social scientists and outreach specialists, including in collective agendas (Nadkarni & Stasch, 2013b). Others lead such work nationally: NSF-funded ARIS at the University of Missouri, for example, has long supported academics in STEM fields to consider how they might more substantively support K-12 (ARIS, 2020), and countless model efforts exist on other campuses.…”

“…Our process started with reflecting on “broader impact.” As BI options, NSF often encourages academics to leverage their research projects to support K–12 students and/or teachers and to prioritize underresourced communities of all ages for greater societal benefits (MacFadden, 2019). Many observers have urged stretching beyond small/short-term efforts and largely academic audiences (Gould et al, 2019; Lima, 2017) toward deeper engagement in underrepresented communities, including K–12 (Nadkarni & Stasch, 2013a, 2013b). Like others, we have found the BI push creates a stream of faculty seeking potentially equity-oriented K–12 applications for their work—requiring supports for effective design (ARIS, 2020; Roberts, 2009).…”

“…Leveraging grant funds, his team repeats these lessons for thousands of K–12 students annually in public street fairs, engaging university presenters alongside local industry and community organizations, and in sustained science clubs hosted by schools serving low-income communities. Because research would suggest one science festival likely will not transform children’s paths, the goal (as in many others’ work; e.g., Lima, 2017) is to strategically increase the equity effects of any effort by pursuing simultaneous mutual benefit: K–12 students (and families) meet older peers pursuing STEM pathways, community college students build connections to transfer to our university, and campus STEM students practice public STEM communication, foster STEM belonging, and stay inspired. Over time, this author has tapped local foundations to employ high school students, too, in supporting younger students’ learning, broadcasting further that all can “belong in STEM.”…”

“…What we offer to this national conversation is excitement about K–12-connected, equity-driven support teams of education researchers and expert practitioners on campuses directly partnering with K–12, community, and campus colleagues to codesign, coexecute, and costudy university contributions from all fields that are desired and needed locally. We further propose that funders and campuses should fund more such campus teams of diverse, experienced, equity-focused professionals to work with partners on developing K–12 contributions and to pair campus projects with actual community needs and people (Lima, 2017; Roberts, 2009). Such work to collectively leverage university resources well is worth funding.…”

Community engagement in engineering education: A systematic literature review

“…We could only identify two articles that discussed engineering graduate students participating in such projects (Miles et al, 2005;Reddick et al, 2018). In a special issue in 2017, the Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning published five articles on the topic of graduate students in SLCE (DelNero, 2017;Doberneck et al, 2017;Goodhue, 2017;Hubrig et al, 2017;Lima, 2017). However, these five papers are considered conceptual papers without empirical evidence supporting graduate student involvement.…”