NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80HQTR22DA001/80HQTR23FA005). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72749-5
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-72749-9
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27989

Cover image credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, Webb ERO Production Team.

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu.

Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Assessing NASA Science Activation 2.0: Progress, Achievements, and Strategic Recommendations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27989.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE TO ASSESS NASA SCIENCE ACTIVATION 2.0

MARGARET HONEY (Chair), President, Scratch Foundation

WENDY GRAM (Vice Chair), COMET Deputy Director, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

FLAVIO S. AZEVEDO, Associate Professor, Department of Teaching & Learning, Simmons School of Education and Human Development, Southern Methodist University

PAULA BONTEMPI, Dean of the Graduate School of Oceanography, University of Rhode Island

ORLANDO FIGUEROA, Founder, Orlando Leadership Enterprise

ROGERS P. HALL, Wachtmeister Family Professor of Education, Emeritus, Vanderbilt University

VICTOR R. LEE, Associate Professor, Stanford Graduate School of Education

ALINA MARTINEZ, Former Principal Researcher; and Director, Mathematica

RAJUL PANDYA, Professor of Practice, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, and Executive Director, Global Futures Education Lab, Arizona State University

DARRYL N. WILLIAMS, Senior Vice President, Science and Education, The Franklin Institute

Staff

KENNE DIBNER, Study Director

JANET GAO, Program Officer

LUCY OLIVEROS, Senior Program Assistant

HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Board Director, Board on Science Education

BOARD ON SCIENCE EDUCATION

SUSAN R. SINGER (Chair), President, St. Olaf College

SUE ALLEN, Allen & Associates

MEGAN BANG, Learning Sciences, Northwestern University

VICKI L. CHANDLER, Provost, Minerva Schools at Keck Graduate Institute

MAYA M. GARCIA, Chief Program Officer, Beyond100K

DAVID GOLDSTON, Director, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Washington Office

G. PETER LEPAGE, Andrew H. and James S. Tisch Distinguished University Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Cornell University

WILLIAM PENUEL, School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder

STEPHEN L. PRUITT, President, Southern Regional Education Board

K. RENAE PULLEN, K–6 Science Curriculum Instructional Specialist, Caddo Parish Schools, Louisiana

K. ANN RENNINGER, Social Theory and Social Action, Swarthmore College

FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ, Chancellor, Los Angeles Community College District

MARCY H. TOWNS, Bodner-Honig Professor of Chemistry, Purdue University

DARRYL N. WILLIAMS, Senior Vice President, Science and Education, The Franklin Institute

Staff

HEIDI SCHWEINGRUBER, Director

AMY STEPHENS, Associate Director

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

BRONWYN BEVAN, Research, The Wallace Foundation

KEVIN BONINE, Undergraduate Research and Scholar Development, Undergraduate Education, Office of the Provost, The University of Arizona

GUDIEL R. CROSTHWAITE, Superintendent, Lynwood Unified School District, CA

KAREEM EDOUARD, Department of Teaching, Learning, and Curriculum, School of Education, Drexel University

CAITLIN FARRELL, National Center of Research in Policy and Practice, School of Education, University of Colorado

ANDRES HENRIQUEZ, STEM Education Strategy, U.S. Division, Education Development Center

CHRIS IMPEY, Department of Astronomy, The University of Arizona

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by MICHAEL C. LACH, Superintendent, Hinsdale High School District 86, IL, and KATHERINE H. FREEMAN, Department of Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Acknowledgments

This Consensus Study Report reflects the invaluable contributions of many individuals who provided their expertise, including those who served on the committee; the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies); and many other experts who participated in the committee’s discussions.

This report was made possible by sponsorship from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). We first thank Kristen Erickson, former Director of Science Engagement and Partnerships with NASA Science Mission Directorate; and Lin Chambers, Science Activation Project Manager, for requesting the study and providing ongoing insight to the committee. The Board on Science Education (BOSE) is deeply grateful for our decade-long partnership with Science Activation.

Over the course of the study, the committee held public information-gathering meetings, and committee members greatly benefited from presentations by, and discussions with, the participating individuals: Steve Rider, Pacific Research and Evaluation; Kristi Manseth, Pacific Research and Evaluation; Taline Kuyumjian, Pacific Research and Evaluation; Ben Hamlington, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Carl Lewis, Fairchild Gardens; Sue Allen, Allen & Associates; Dennis Schatz, Pacific Science Center; Jackie DeLisi, Education Development Center; Eric Banilower, Horizon Research; and Colleen Manning, Goodman Research Group. The committee is also deeply grateful to the principal investigators, project staff, and project participants from the following SciAct projects, who generously shared their time and insight on our multiple site visits: NASA HEAT, the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, Astronomy Activation Ambassadors, NASA

Community College Network, NASA Night Sky Network, Navigating the Path of Totality at the Exploratorium, NASA’s Neurodiversity Network, and Native Earth | Native Sky.

We are also grateful for the efforts of Daniel Aguirre, who prepared a brief background paper synthesizing learnings from our site visits for use in drafting the report.

Thanks are also due to project staff. Janet Gao (Program Officer, BOSE) provided critical assistance by helping with report production. Heidi Schweingruber (Director, BOSE) remains the lynchpin of BOSE: her wisdom, insight, and endless support are the key to BOSE’s success. Lucy Oliveros (Senior Program Assistant, BOSE), in her first consensus study with BOSE, deftly managed the study’s complicated logistical and administrative needs and assisted with manuscript preparation.

Finally, we thank Kirsten Sampson Snyder (Director of Reports, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education) for expertly guiding us through the National Academies review process and for unending patience in moving this project along.

Contents

Preface

Summary

1 Introduction

THE COMMITTEE’S CHARGE AND APPROACH

EVIDENCE GATHERING AND SITE VISITS

GOALS FOR THE REPORT

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT

2 Background and Context

HISTORY AND CHARACTERIZATION OF THE SCIENCE ACTIVATION PROGRAM

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

NATIONAL STEM EDUCATION LANDSCAPE

SUMMARY

3 Evolution: SciAct 1.0 to SciAct 2.0

CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO EARLIER NATIONAL ACADEMIES RECOMMENDATIONS

THE CURRENT PORTFOLIO: SCIACT 2.0

DEFINING SUCCESS FOR SCIACT 2.0

4 Considerations for SciAct 3.0

EXPERTISE AND THE ROLE OF NASA ASSETS

LEARNING ECOSYSTEMS WITHIN THE SCIENCE ACTIVATION PORTFOLIO

EXPANDING COMMUNITY-CENTERED APPROACHES

MEETING THE UNIQUE NEEDS OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS

THE POTENTIAL OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING IN SCIENCE ACTIVATION

SUMMARY

5 Recommendations for SciAct 3.0

OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT: INTENTIONAL COMMUNICATION

COMMUNICATING SCIENCE ACTIVATION IMPACTS AND RELEVANCE ACROSS NASA AND BEYOND

FINAL THOUGHTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

References

Appendix A Input for the Committee

Appendix B Committee Members’ Biographies

Boxes and Figures

BOXES

1-1 Charge to the Committee

3-1 Science Activation Mid-Level Objectives

FIGURES

3-1 Science Activation’s model, emphasizing collaboration with NASA and among SciAct projects

3-2 Science Activation 2.0 portfolio-level logic model

This page intentionally left blank.

Preface

NASA’s Science Activation program (SciAct) represents a rich and diverse body of work, and it has been a rare privilege to follow its growth and evolution over a 10-year period. As we reflect on a decade of science engagement, learning, and innovation, the accomplishments of SciAct projects are a testament not just to the vision and dedication of the teams involved but also to the collaborative spirit that defines the work.

At the heart of SciAct’s success are the countless individuals, organizations, and communities that have committed to making the program’s vision a reality. To all the scientists, educators, learners, and advocates who have engaged with and supported SciAct, your enthusiasm and commitment have been a constant source of inspiration. Your efforts to promote discovery and learning across diverse communities will continue to grow the program’s reach and depth, ensuring SciAct’s impact on millions of people across the country.

We also extend our deepest appreciation to our colleagues at NASA, whose commitment to scientific excellence and engagement is unparalleled. The collaborative models and partnerships fostered through this program not only have advanced STEM education but have significantly advanced the cause of STEM learning and engagement for the nation.

Finally, we wish to thank our insightful and generous colleagues who agreed to volunteer their time and expertise to serve on the committee and shape this report. Your rigorous review and discerning recommendations not only will help to shape the future of SciAct but will guide the program toward even greater impact.

We thank you all for your many contributions to this endeavor.

With gratitude,

Margaret Honey, Committee Chair
Wendy Gram, Committee Vice Chair
Kenne Dibner, Study Director