STEM Rocks Research Collective: Building and Sustaining a Collaborative, Equity-Focused Scholarly Community
by
, , , ,
Kristin L. Cook
1,*
,
Jessica Ivy
2, 
Cat Maiorca
3
,
Octavia Tripp
4,
Megan Burton
4
,
Christa Jackson
5,
Sarah B. Bush
6,
Margaret Mohr-Schroeder
7,
Dan Edelen
8,
Craig Schroeder
9 and
Thomas Roberts
10 1
School of Education, Bellarmine University, Louisville, KY 40205, USA
2
Department of Education and Counseling, Purdue University Northwest, Hammond, IN 46323, USA
3
Elementary Education, California State University Northridge, Northridge, CA 91330, USA
4
Department of Curriculum and Teaching, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA
5
School of Education, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO 63103, USA
6
School of Teacher Education, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
7
Office of the Provost, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
8
Early Childhood and Elementary Education, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303, USA
9
Division of Innovation, Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY 40601, USA
10
College of Education and Human Development, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci. 2024, 14(9), 947; https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090947
Submission received: 19 July 2024
/
Revised: 21 August 2024
/
Accepted: 27 August 2024
/
Published: 28 August 2024
Abstract
:Here, we outline the stories of a collective of innovation-focused STEM education professionals engaged in a STEM collective across thirteen institutions of higher education. Using focus group interviews, faculty share how collaboration began and sustains, the affordances and challenges of collaboration across universities and professional fields, support systems through professional organizations and scholarship, and contributions made to the national landscape of STEM education. Guidance is presented on establishing STEM collaborations that are mutually beneficial to faculty, institutions, and the educational community.
1. Introduction
1.1. Purpose of This Manuscript
In this paper, we share the story of our innovation-focused Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) education research collective. We are a group of dedicated scholars and STEM education professionals with diverse backgrounds, experiences, interests, and passions. Our collective is united by a shared mission to transform STEM education experiences for learners, educators, and systems, with a particular emphasis on empowering and fostering change agents for equity through our work.
Working on a large research team is full of strengths but also contains unique challenges. In this paper, we explore these strengths, are honest about our challenges, reflect on our own practices, and pose recommendations and strategies for those wanting to embark on their own research groups, collectives, and teams.
1.2. What Is a Research Collective?
A research collective is a group of researchers who collaborate and work toward a common research goal. Through collaborative endeavors as a collective, researchers’ work is improved in quality and innovation [1]. Effective research collectives focus on relationship building, contextual factors for collaborative members, self-reflection, dissemination of information, and adapting and understanding research methods [2]. Research collaboratives are most effective when they include diverse representations, contexts, and viewpoints. In education specifically, including both researchers and practitioners can help the group address persistent problems of practice [3]. Because research collaborative collectives can span multiple organizations and are not bound geographically, the group includes diverse perspectives and can tackle complex problems in multi-faceted ways. It is also important that the research collaborative move beyond traditional boundaries and roles to develop new ideas for collaborative inquiry and improvement [4]. With these ideas in mind, key attributes of our research collaborative collective include: the establishment of a shared goal or focus, membership with varied expertise and interests that overlap the identified goal or focus, opportunities for collaboration on scholarly products and projects, platforms for fostering and sharing knowledge within the group, and collective outputs often with shared authorship.
1.3. What Is STEM Rocks?
STEM Rocks is a research collective consisting of STEM education professionals across more than a dozen institutions in the United States. STEM Rocks members include faculty from public and private institutions and K-12 educators. Our shared focus is on improving STEM education opportunities for all students. We meet bi-weekly via Zoom (Version 5.0.2) to plan, collaborate, and reflect on STEM education projects. We have collaborated on grant proposals, presentations, K-12 camps, books, book chapters, journal articles, education blogs, professional development facilitation, and webinars. We acknowledge the collective contribution in each product produced, and we have an established author order rotation to ensure equity in authorship. In summary, we are a group of colleagues with a common interest in STEM education motivated to continue working hard toward our common, altruistic goal.
2. Methods
2.1. Self-Study Design
From a theoretical perspective, we draw on social constructivism [5] and an understanding that reality emerges through our collective experiences and interactions with our surroundings, contexts, and fellow participants. This process of meaning-making is dynamic, shaped by our social and cultural contexts and the specific period in which we work. For our study, we used a narrative inquiry methodology to illuminate how the STEM Rocks research group was co-constructed during the last ten years. Narrative inquiry is an approach to studying the collective lives of people that honors their experiences as a source of knowledge and understanding [6]. A key part of narrative inquiry is the stories that people tell, enact, and build from when describing experiences [6]. For our purposes, we use narrative inquiry to capture the lived experiences, histories, and stories that tell the collective story of STEM Rocks. We are specifically interested in how the STEM Rocks research collective constructed a group identity as researchers, teachers, colleagues, and friends; thus, we employed focus group interviewing methods of data construction to provide space for co-telling of stories, histories, and placemaking. In this study, the co-construction of narratives among the STEM Rocks participants provides a comprehensive lens for understanding how the personal, social, and situational stories are shaped by and situated within particular contexts and sequences of events.
2.2. Participants
The participants were a subset of the STEM Rocks membership. The two founders, as well as several members who joined at various times, were present during the development of the group. There were a total of eight members present for the focus group, although the other members contributed to written responses to focus group notes asynchronously afterward. The full collaborator list is below (Table 1).
2.3. Focus Group Procedures
The focus group interview was semi-structured and was guided by the following questions: (1) How has the group evolved or grown over time? (2) What are some regular functions like meetings and events that keep STEM Rocks moving forward? (3) In what ways have the group’s collaborative efforts impacted individual collaborators and the collective as a whole? and (4) What advice do you have for other groups aiming to establish a research group like this? The interview occurred via Zoom (Version 5.0.2). Following the focus group, all STEM Rocks members were invited to respond to the questions via a shared document. The transcription, recording (using AI reader assistance called Read AI, 2024), and researcher notes were used for data analysis by way of thematic coding [7,8].
2.4. Data Analysis and Interpretation
Narrative analysis helped to distill themes that emerged from the STEM Rocks focus group interviews. By examining the overarching narratives, we identified recurring patterns, key elements, and significant features across multiple stories. This holistic approach focused on the entire narrative arc rather than isolated components, providing insights into how STEM Rocks participants constructed meaning from their experiences in the research collective. We used an inductive method to analyze the data from a ground-up perspective, letting the stories guide the analysis without preconceived ideas shaping the interpretation. This approach started with a close examination of the data itself, identifying emerging patterns and themes to construct an explanatory narrative. Initially, artificial intelligence was used to summarize overall themes from the narrative. Next, researchers coded these themes and identified main themes as well as subthemes. Then, quotes that aligned with themes were connected with revising occurring iteratively. Discussion of the analysis and findings with the STEM Rocks members led to more revisions as a larger group. Because narrative analysis relies on subjective interpretation of others’ stories, member checking was done to conclude the research process for this study. Based on participants’ member checks, revisions were made to the conclusions drawn from the data. We acknowledge that the results of this narrative analysis are not generalizable to other research collectives and cannot be empirically verified.
3. Results
3.1. Purpose and Evolution of the Group
At its inception in 2014, the group’s purpose was centered around providing opportunities and access to high-quality STEM education, especially for historically underrepresented and marginalized students. The origins trace back to two original group members, and their desire to continue collaborating after one took a job elsewhere. Their work and desire to continue collaborating were propelled by their shared passion for expanding access in STEM fields. One of the original group members described the origins of the group as a space to set colleagues up for success and to continue collaborations even when students graduate and colleagues change institutions.
However, team members noted that the goals of the STEM Rocks group have since expanded while remaining focused on the driving commitment to equity and inclusion. From the original two members to now including 13 members (see entire collaborator list), the group has not only grown in size but also in goals. Despite the increase in size of the group and the expansion of goals, the group and its work remain focused on the Equity-oriented STEM Literacy Framework [9]. STEM Rocks aims to provide all learners, especially those historically marginalized and excluded from STEM, with access to high-quality, hands-on, and student-centered STEM learning experiences.
Through initiatives like STEM camps and research, the group aims to tackle obstacles preventing underrepresented students from participating and excelling in STEM. One group member noted, “It’s still the same at the core of it all, but I think it’s kind of expanded and also been more focused, if that makes sense. So we worked together because we had a deep passion for opportunity and access, especially for historically marginalized populations… we both had a passion for and we wanted to find other things to continue to work on together and build the impact of this work”. Over time, the group has tackled a variety of projects, but at its core, the central purpose of expanding access to and belonging in STEM remains.
The team identified their unique strength lies in the shared values and supportive environment fostered within the group itself. A group member emphasizes how their unified goal of delivering high-quality STEM opportunities to underrepresented students sets them apart in academia, where such priorities are not universal. She states, “We all have the same purpose and the same shared values of just really wanting to make sure that underrepresented students get high-quality STEM. And I have learned that that is not always the norm in academia, but it should be”. For another group member, the group provides an uplifting community to explore ideas, push boundaries, and persist through setbacks in the larger mission. He stated, “I want to hone my ideas and get them out to a broader audience around the idea of increasing STEM participation across underrepresented populations. The group gives me that support to keep moving forward, generating new ideas and areas to explore, and encouragement when failure occurs. Its purpose for me is a supportive community to push me, pull me, or walk with me; whatever is needed at the time for all the members”.
While the specific projects and activities have evolved, increasing STEM participation across underrepresented populations remains the core purpose, uniting this group of colleagues and driving their collaborative efforts forward. Their work is motivated by a conviction that all students, regardless of background, deserve equitable access to engage with STEM fields. The members share a common mission and values centered around equity, asset-based thinking, and collaborative work.
3.2. Group Culture and Expectations
3.2.1. Mentorship and Support
A focus on the culture of support, mentorship, and collaboration was described as the main benefit of the collaboration. A junior faculty member expressed gratitude for the unique dynamic, contrasting it with other spaces where novice perspectives were often underappreciated. “In this group, there is generally the idea that everyone brings something and the expertise is extremely valued”, he remarked. Another group member echoed this sentiment, underlining the bonds that transcended mere projects and grants. “We can call on each other when we need support”, she affirmed, highlighting the group’s profound commitment to one another’s growth.
Group members referenced certain key characteristics that undergirded the support network. An important element of mentorship is actively cultivating leadership among group members. “We have this shared value system and mission”, she explained. “Group members have made it clear that we are trying to uplift people working toward their next career goal, ensuring they receive opportunities like first authorship”. Also described were the bi-weekly meetings where any group member could add an agenda item they wanted to discuss, whether a new project idea or a personal question related to their professional goals and position. The flexibility of the meetings allowed contributions from all and created an environment where any group member could lead the discussion.
The focus group responses revealed a tightly knit collective where support, guidance, and collaborative growth formed the foundation of their shared journey. The members uplifted each other’s voices and contributions, fostering an environment where everyone’s expertise was deeply valued, regardless of career stage. One group member captured this by stating, “The attention to community and what everybody needs and how we can support each other, but also the continued focus of whose voices are we elevating in citations, the asset-based thinking of our learners and each other”.
3.2.2. Momentum and Connectivity
Maintaining momentum and connectivity within the group is a priority. Beyond the bi-weekly virtual meetings, in-person interactions at conferences play a crucial role in generating new ideas and keeping the momentum going. One group member noted, “It’s more than that in the sense that like, even if there’s just subgroups, subsets of us at different conferences, because we’re obviously all not going to everything. I think that just keeps the momentum”. This connectivity through timed events such as conferences or grant submissions was instrumental in keeping the group focused and working toward a common goal.
The ‘backchannel’ conversations and group text thread were also considered very important in keeping the group connected in an organic way. As one group member noted, “So definitely the meetings keep us going. Planning for grants and conferences. So like having that trajectory and plan of like, okay, we’re gonna do this, this, and this. And then I think that something in terms that’s kind of evolved and grown but has become a regular is our text group. I feel like that has helped us stay even more connected. In positive ways, whether or not that’s through support or like back channeling”.
The group emphasizes the importance of vulnerability and open communication, encouraging members to seek help when needed. They acknowledge the challenges of initially defining their focus area and aligning their diverse interests under the umbrella of informal learning. As one group member notes, “And that we do stay pretty darn true to that in terms of just like rotating authorship, but having a system and method that is vocalized and we all talk about and it’s all agreed upon and acknowledging that those are hard conversations to have and put everyone in vulnerable spaces”.
3.2.3. Value of Diverse Perspectives
The group values the diverse expertise and perspectives that each member brings to the group. In the focus group interview, group members shared their thoughts on the supportive and mentorship aspects of the group, emphasizing the value of diverse expertise and the challenges of balancing different interests and roles within the group. A group member noted, “I think we’ve got the common focus of STEM, but we each have our own areas of interest and we can work together, but also say, no, I’d like to step out of this. This isn’t really in my wheelhouse”.
The research collective values the diverse perspectives and geographical diversity that allows them to push the boundaries of their work. With members bringing expertise from different backgrounds, such as model-eliciting activities (MEAs), artificial intelligence (AI) platforms, different strategies for integration, career connections, methodologies, equity frameworks, and more, their collaborative efforts lead to rich discussions and novel approaches. For example, after discussing their integration of a variety of AI tools in their teaching, a subset of members embarked on a research project that resulted in several scholarly products. Through this work, it became evident that the group represented a variety of perspectives on the use of AI tools. One group member preferred Claude, while two others focused mostly on Magic School AI, another focused on ChatGPT, and another preferred Gemini. Despite their varying preferences and the different ways they integrated the tools in their classes, they were able to collaborate and work to grow in their understanding together. This collaboration resulted in a national presentation, a national webinar, and several publications. The value of diverse perspectives was also evident in their recent publication [10] where they tried new methodologies such as collectively analyzing data through a transcript, using photo elicitation methods, and doing discourse analysis of photos. No one was the foremost expert on any single aspect, but by combining their varied skills, they were able to promote marginalized voices in STEM education in a collaborative way. One member notes the central foundation of the equity mission leading to many spin-off projects, “When you look at that equity framework and what’s come from it, when you look at all the different work that the group as a whole has done. Everything’s built and we just keep growing, which gives more publications, webinars and grants, but then also pushes us to keep growing”.
The geographic distribution of the group across different locations (see collaborator list) is also seen as beneficial, allowing them to gather varied research and identify blind spots in each other’s perspectives. Whenever we think they are doing something groundbreaking, the diverse viewpoints reveal new areas to explore and build upon. What may start as a small idea grows through the group’s iterative process into publications, webinars, awards, and grant opportunities. But beyond just building vitas, their driving force is continually asking critical questions to have a real positive impact. The synergy of their distinct backgrounds and open sharing of expertise allows for more expansive research experiences.
3.3. Negotiating Challenges
3.3.1. Sense of Belonging
As the group expanded, managing the workload and ensuring a sense of belonging and clear roles became more difficult. Members expressed concerns about feeling like they were contributing enough and worries about others feeling left out, particularly when working in smaller subgroups on specific projects such as manuscripts or conference presentations. As one member notes, “I was just thinking about… am I doing my part? I constantly have the self-doubt of am I doing enough of reassuring me that I am and reassuring each other that they are, but at the same time, helping people outside the group realize that this isn’t just the facade. This is really everybody’s working together”. Another member responded with agreement but also a counterpoint, “I just realize I don’t have to be part of everything. I can focus on this one small thing that is my general area or is what I’m interested in and contribute to the project”. Another group member agreed, “I appreciate the large group. I can contribute in areas that are strengths for me without feeling like I’m not doing enough and I don’t have to do everything. It was so daunting, thinking back right after graduation, to publish articles and get ideas together on your own and the quality didn’t have that differing perspective. Now we have a de facto internal reviewer group built in that ensures our work is of high quality and ready for publication”. For all group members, a sense of belonging was important to ensure everyone was included in various ways.
3.3.2. Logistics
The group’s size and geographical distance also presented challenges in convincing funders and the academic community of their ability to design integrated STEM experiences. Additionally, the group faced resistance and roadblocks due to their large size, such as limitations on the number of authors allowed on publications or conference presentations. One group member noted, “I think that’s challenging because we all have the same core values and our focus is but is convincing other people like funders that yes, we can design integrated STEM activities across the country and they be aligned”. Another group member agreed, “It’s a great affordance that we’re a large team because we go to different conferences. We have different groups of people that we interact with from our respective institutions but at the same time, that system, we’ve run into roadblocks about and resistance about how large we are, whether it’s how many people can be on a conference presentation or how many people’s names can be on a front book cover or whatever, or grants that are well this too many universities involved”.
However, the group also recognized the advantages of their size, including the ability to rapidly scale implementations, draw on a diverse range of institutions, and provide a built-in internal review process for high-quality work. One member notes, “On the contrary it’s really easy to rapidly scale something due to the group size. If we need multiple implementations with different groups we have it right at our fingertips. Rather than connections within one academic institution we can immediately draw on ten or more. It gives us great flexibility and is one of the reasons we can be nimble and get out our ideas in relatively short timeframes”.
The group’s high productivity and passion for STEM education have helped in retaining members who are dedicated and hardworking. A group member reflected, “And in this group, because we are pretty high productivity group, if people don’t kind of value that sort of level of pace, they would fall away, I would imagine, from this group. It’d be too much, you know, to add on to all the other things they do. So by default, because we are very productive, it keeps those who are very hard workers, you know, and who really have a lot of investment and passion around STEM to stay involved.
3.3.3. Impact
The group aimed to broaden their impact beyond individual research papers. As one member notes, it is great to add to our CVs, but “it just still not being bigger for the sake of bigger, but like bigger, because we believe in what we’re doing, we find joy and passion in what we’re doing”. They discussed the need to integrate their work into state departments of education and district leadership to ensure systemic implementation and reach a broader audience. While acknowledging the group’s growth and impact on educators and students, they emphasized the importance of staying true to their values and finding joy and passion in their work. One group member poses the question, “And that is, how do we truly make a broader influence? How do we get more integrated into the state Departments of Education (DOEs) to then ensure that this work is then being systemically implemented or systematically implemented with through district leaders, and teacher leaders, and specialists, and educators”.
One member, a K-12 educator, brought a perspective on the challenges of scaling grassroots changes within the bureaucracy of school systems. The group explored writing for administrators at various levels as a way to achieve meaningful and widespread impact. One of the K-12 teachers in the group notes, “As a K-12 educator in a school I try to bring that perspective when possible. Recently we were discussing building up advocacy in preservice and inservice teachers to make grassroots changes in systems. I kindly pointed out that even if a teacher was successful in their own classroom, the likelihood of that scaling to a school and then a district was very slim given the bureaucracy present. We discussed writing for administrators at the school, district, and state level as a way to truly scale in a meaningful way”.
4. Discussion
The collaborative approach to research, writing, and dissemination has led to unique and impactful work, but it also required navigating new methods and working styles. The group has evolved by being more intentional about things like author order, meeting structures, and dividing up work.
4.1. Advice for Other Groups
In the following section, the above themes were synthesized to provide recommendations for others currently in or who wish to begin a research collaboration in STEM.
4.1.1. Be Flexible and Adaptable
Although a research collective will begin with a set of members, structure, and agreements, it is essential that there is also room to renegotiate and adapt to changes that might happen. Having a structure that allows for this flexibility and openness is essential. One member described the process as “messy” and that we must accept that sometimes members will leave the group. As members “gracefully exit without burning bridges” she emphasized that we can approach it from the perspective of “you tried us on for size and it’s okay”. Similarly, one member encouraged the group to embrace a “just do it” mentality, emphasizing the value of taking action and being open to new collaborations. One member summed it up, saying, “You just have to kind of go with the flow and be flexible. And that’s really the beauty of it, is that if everybody was doing things just the way you were doing, then it would actually be very boring and you wouldn’t learn very much”.
4.1.2. Prioritize Honest Communication and Vulnerability
Effective research collectives must have a mechanism for having difficult conversations, respective varying perspectives, and exposing themselves to the vulnerability and criticism necessary to grow. A member describes the importance of “having a system and method that is vocalized and we all talk about and it’s all agreed upon and acknowledging that those are hard conversations to have and put everyone in vulnerable spaces”. Another member adds that flexibility and honesty are crucial in group dynamics, especially in academia, where working with diverse perspectives and approaches can lead to growth and learning. It’s important to set the group up for this vulnerability and honest communication through regular goal and norm-setting meetings. In these meetings, group members can discuss where they are in their careers, how the work of the group fits with their workloads, and how much time each member can commit to the work of the research collaborative. It is in this space that details such as author order on publications and which conferences the group will prioritize over the upcoming year can be discussed.
4.1.3. Self-Selection for Collaborative Endeavors
A successful research collective may engage in many projects, publications, and proposals simultaneously. It is important that members are able to self-select which of these endeavors they want to contribute to. The self-selected nature of the STEM Rocks collaborative has helped maintain high productivity and engagement. A member described “the fact that we have all different expertise, like that we focus on the learner, and then we focus on preservice teachers, and then [another member] has like a graduate focus, that if we want to enable systemic change, that this is the kind of group that can do that because we focus on everyone, like the system as a whole”. Regardless of which endeavors each member opts to contribute to, there is a strong focus on supporting each other. One member describes, “[STEM Rocks] allows me to dream big and know there is a space to land if it fails. At the core is just a set of people that are good inside”.
5. Conclusions
The common vision and goal of transforming STEM education experiences towards empowering and fostering change agents for equity through our work provides the foundation for everything we do. The originators fostered an environment and expectation of genuine care for others. The collective works towards uplifting individuals and individuals work towards uplifting the collective. The norms and framework of expectations for things such as meetings, contributions, authorship, asset-based thinking, and so much more have been essential. Leadership has been key in maintaining these norms and expectations while also adapting as the group expands and contracts. While there are challenges, the benefit of working and grouping the collective has impacted each individual and the impact of the work of the collective.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.L.C. and J.I.; validation, M.M.-S. and C.J.; formal analysis, M.B. and S.B.B.; data curation, D.E., C.S. and C.M. writing—review and editing, O.T. and T.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, as this was a self-study.
Informed Consent Statement
Patient consent was waived, as this was a self-study.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Srinivas, T.A.; Varaprasad, R. Innovation through Collaboration: Advancing Higher Education Research. Res. Rev. Adv. Robot. 2023, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Collaborative Education Research Collective. Towards a Field for Collaborative Education Research: Developing a Framework for the Complexity of Necessary Learning; The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: Menlo Park, CA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Henrick, E.C.; Cobb, P.; Penuel, W.R.; Jackson, K.; Clark, T. Assessing Research-Practice Partnerships: Five Dimensions of Effectiveness; William T. Grant Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Peurach, D.J.; Foster, A.T.; Lyle, A.M.; Seeber, E.R. Democratizing Educational Innovation and Improvement: The Policy Contexts of Improvement Research in Education; CPRE Working Papers; University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2021; Available online: https://repository.upenn.edu/cpre_workingpapers/27 (accessed on 1 June 2024).
- Merriam, S.B. Non-Western Perspectives on Learning and Knowing; Krieger Associates: Malabar, FA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Clandinin, D.J. Engaging in Narrative Inquiry, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ReadAI. ReadAI (June 4 Version) [Large Language Model]. 2024. Available online: https://www.read.ai/ (accessed on 1 June 2024).
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, C.; Mohr-Schroeder, M.J.; Bush, S.; Maiorca, C.; Roberts, O.T. Toward an equity-based STEM literacy conceptual framework. Int. J. STEM Educ. 2021, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edelen, D.; Cook, K.; Tripp, L.O.; Jackson, C.; Bush, S.B.; Mohr-Schroeder, M.J.; Schroeder, D.C.; Roberts, O.T.; Maiorca, C.; Ivy, J.; et al. “No, this is not my Boyfriend’s Computer”: A brief report elevating the voices of youth in STEM education research leveraging photo elicitation. J. STEM Educ. Res. 2024, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1.
STEM Rocks research collective (author order).
| Collaborator | Institution | Title | Expertise |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kristin Cook | Bellarmine University | Professor of Science Education Associate Dean of School of Education |
|
| Jessica Ivy | Purdue University Northwest | Thomas Ray Crowel Endowed Professor of STEM Education |
|
| Cat Maiorca | California State University, Northridge | Assistant Professor of STEM Education |
|
| L. Octavia Tripp | Auburn University | Professor of Elementary Education |
|
| Megan Burton | Auburn University | Professor of Elementary Education |
|
| Christa Jackson | Saint Louis University | Professor of Educational Studies Founder and Director of the Institute for STEM Collaboration, Outreach, Research, and Education |
|
| Sarah B. Bush | University of Central Florida | Professor of K-12 STEM Education at the University of Central Florida Lockheed Martin Eminent Scholar Chair and Director of the Lockheed Martin/UCF Mathematics and Science Academy Program Co-Coordinator, Mathematics Education Track of PhD in Education |
|
| Margaret Mohr-Schroeder | Kansas State University | Professor of STEM Education Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Innovation |
|
| Daniel Edelen | Georgia State University | Assistant Professor in Early Childhood and Elementary Mathematics Education |
|
| Craig Schroeder | Kentucky Department of Education | Regional Innovation Specialist |
|
| Thomas Roberts | Bowling Green State University | Associate Professor at Bowling Green State University Co-Coordinator of the PK-5 Teacher Preparation Program |
|
Two STEM Rocks research team members who were not part of this manuscript but we would like to recognize as important collaborators are Richard Cox (STEAM Community Strategist from Atrium Health in Charlotte, North Carolina) and Andrea Perrin (doctoral candidate at the University of Kentucky).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Cook, K.L.; Ivy, J.; Maiorca, C.; Tripp, O.; Burton, M.; Jackson, C.; Bush, S.B.; Mohr-Schroeder, M.; Edelen, D.; Schroeder, C.; et al. STEM Rocks Research Collective: Building and Sustaining a Collaborative, Equity-Focused Scholarly Community. Educ. Sci. 2024, 14, 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090947
AMA Style
Cook KL, Ivy J, Maiorca C, Tripp O, Burton M, Jackson C, Bush SB, Mohr-Schroeder M, Edelen D, Schroeder C, et al. STEM Rocks Research Collective: Building and Sustaining a Collaborative, Equity-Focused Scholarly Community. Education Sciences. 2024; 14(9):947. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090947
Chicago/Turabian StyleCook, Kristin L., Jessica Ivy, Cat Maiorca, Octavia Tripp, Megan Burton, Christa Jackson, Sarah B. Bush, Margaret Mohr-Schroeder, Dan Edelen, Craig Schroeder, and et al. 2024. "STEM Rocks Research Collective: Building and Sustaining a Collaborative, Equity-Focused Scholarly Community" Education Sciences 14, no. 9: 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090947
APA StyleCook, K. L., Ivy, J., Maiorca, C., Tripp, O., Burton, M., Jackson, C., Bush, S. B., Mohr-Schroeder, M., Edelen, D., Schroeder, C., & Roberts, T. (2024). STEM Rocks Research Collective: Building and Sustaining a Collaborative, Equity-Focused Scholarly Community. Education Sciences, 14(9), 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14090947
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
