Building Successful STEM Partnerships in Education: Strategies for Enhancing Collaboration

Abstract

This article presents a comparison of two qualitative case studies. The first case study is a partnership group involving two urban secondary school teachers working with one engineer and one education faculty member where they implemented several science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) lessons over the course of an academic year. The second case study is a partnership group involving undergraduate college students working together to build a data collection device attached to a high-altitude balloon to answer a scientific question or solve an engineering problem and translate the project into engaging lessons for a K-12/secondary student audience. The studies employed a socio-cultural theoretical framework as the lens to examine the individuals’ perspectives, experiences, and engineering meaning-making processes, and to consider what these meant to the partnership itself. The methods included interviews, focus groups, field notes, and artifacts. The analysis involved multi-level coding. The findings indicated that the strength of the partnership (pre, little p, or big P) among participants influenced the strength of the secondary engineering lessons. The partnership growth implications in terms of K-12/secondary and collegiate engineering education included the engineering lesson strength, partnership, and engineering project sustainability The participant partnership meanings revolved around lesson creation, incorporating engineering ideas into the classroom, increasing communication, and increasing secondary students’ learning, while tensions arose from navigating (not quite negotiating) roles as a team. A call for attention to school–university partnerships and the voices heard in engineering partnership building are included since professional skills are becoming even more important due to advances in artificial intelligence (AI) and other technologies.

1. Introduction

Currently, engineering education branches into engineering thinking and knowing, mechanisms and approaches, inclusiveness, institutional practices, research methods and assessment, and cross-cutting issues and perspectives (Johri & Olds, 2014). Encompassing all these different engineering education areas, there is a push in the United States of America (USA) from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other agencies to promote partnerships and strengthen K-12/secondary science and engineering education, such as school–university partnerships (A. C. Burrows, 2011; Butcher et al., 2011; Constan & Spicer, 2015; Farrell et al., 2021; Gilman et al., 2015; Goriss-Hunter et al., 2022; Houseal et al., 2014; Johri & Olds, 2014; McLaughlin et al., 2016; NSF, 2007, 2017; Silva & Colombo, 2017; T. E. Smith et al., 2020; Ufnar et al., 2017). Some research has examined such partnerships more critically. Gillen et al. (2021) noted that while K-12/secondary school–industry partnerships are promising for improving engineering learning, they often lack theoretical grounding and must navigate significant cross-organizational challenges. There is a need for more rigorous research and better integration of teachers’ voices in K-12/secondary STEM partnerships (Abramowitz et al., 2024) and our understanding of what makes partnerships effective is still developing. To create, work in, and eventually grow important partnerships in science and engineering education, continuing to build from an established base of work is vital (e.g., A. C. Burrows, 2015; T. J. Kilty & Burrows, 2022; Godinho et al., 2015; Mutton et al., 2025; Wolf et al., 2020).

Dhillon (2009) wrote that “partnership is a dominant theme in education policy…but remains relatively under-researched, especially with respect to what sustains partnership” (p. 687). Although partnerships have been researched previously, there is more to learn (Mesutoglu & Baran, 2021). Researchers point to defining partnerships, looking at partnership formation, and understanding partnership function as constructs to move partnerships in education forward (T. J. Kilty & Burrows, 2022; A. Burrows et al., 2018; Butcher et al., 2011; Clifford et al., 2008; Little et al., 2024; Mullinix, 2001; NSF, 2007, 2017). In the US, K-12/secondary science teachers are often expected to teach engineering (Mesutoglu & Baran, 2021; S. Smith et al., 2021) or integrated STEM (Chen et al., 2025; Le et al., 2023; Pringle et al., 2020), and teachers need support to do this well (T. Kilty et al., 2021; Conan Simpson, 2021; Katehi et al., 2009), especially since science and engineering practices are a part of the Next Generation Science Standards or NGSS (NGSS Lead States, 2013). Since K-12/secondary science teachers are now often expected to teach engineering concepts, teams and building partnerships can be a key factor for successful engineering education implementation (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Harlow et al., 2020; Moore et al., 2014; Seth et al., 2014; Sneider & Ravel, 2021; Subramanian & Clark, 2016).

While human partnerships are critical in education and engineering, emerging AI–human collaborations introduce new challenges. While AI can enhance efficiency and automate tasks, it lacks the empathy, intuition, and creative problem-solving abilities that define successful human partnerships (Zhang et al., 2020). In engineering education, teamwork is essential for solving complex problems, and in teaching, relationships foster mentorship and deeper learning (Goddard et al., 2007; Lara-Alecio et al., 2012). However, AI remains a tool rather than a true collaborator, reinforcing the necessity of strong human–human partnerships in both fields (Cuadra et al., 2024). The authors argue that intentional partnership building could lead to enhanced professional skills, more purposeful AI adoption for classroom use, and ultimately, bolstered engineering education in K-12/secondary spaces.

A partnership in this article, based loosely on Goodlad’s (1991) definition, is a planned, mutually beneficial, two or more party relationship that values differences, supports inquiry into practices to encourage change, expects dialogue on expectations/goals/agendas, clearly outlines products and timelines, and above all, builds relationships between its participants by focusing on communication, trust, community issues, context, and culture. Furthermore, Mullinix (2001) identified the pre-partnership, partnership (with a little p), and Partnership (with a big P) dimensions. These categories are utilized to describe the case studies’ success with partnership interactions in the context and results in Section 3, negotiations in Section 4, and the discussions, conclusions, and recommendations in Section 5.

2. Materials and Methods

This article presents a longitudinal comparison of two qualitative case studies by exploring two projects that occurred nearly a decade apart to critically view the partnership formation metrics over time. The authors were interested in investigating if advances in partnership building had occurred during a decade of global focus on partnership importance. Note that both studies presented here were IRB-approved, and all the names of the schools and individuals presented are pseudonyms with purposefully selected first letters to easily map the study, school, and participants. For lesson planning throughout the two case studies, there was consideration given to protected time and space so that the participants could plan lessons and then debrief after them (A. C. Burrows et al., 2021; Reeves* & Forde, 2004). The first study, completed in 2011 at Coleman Secondary School, explored a project that involved three participants (one engineer and two teachers) working with an educational researcher, where the partnership group implemented five K-12/secondary engineering lessons over the course of an academic year. The participants and school pseudonyms feature first letters from the start of the alphabet. The engineer (male), two K-12/secondary teachers (females), and collegiate liaison (female) worked together in a secondary school as part of an engineering education partnership initiative. All the partnership members were striving to create a partnership that resulted in K-12/secondary student learning gains.

The second case study, completed between 2018 and 2019 at Rysen Secondary School and Saber Secondary School, focused on a collegiate grant initiative and involved six undergraduate college students, who formed two teams of three participants each. The participant and school pseudonyms are either “R” or “S” to align alphabetically as well as with the team’s name and focus. Thus, the Cosmic Radiation team worked at Rysen Secondary School (2018–2019). The team included a mechanical engineering major (male), a physics and astrophysics major (female), and a secondary social studies education major (male). The Speed of Sound team worked at Saber Secondary School (2018–2019). The team included an electrical engineering major (male), a physics and astrophysics major (male), and a secondary English education major (female). The two teams pursued an engineering problem (e.g., shielding cosmic radiation at high altitude) or scientific question (e.g., measuring the speed of sound at high altitude) and built a data collection device attached to a high-altitude balloon to investigate the question. The Cosmic Radiation team and Speed of Sound team delivered lessons in two STEM classrooms located in two different secondary schools, with students ranging in age from 15 to 18 and 11 to 14, respectively.

Using the case study approach required the collection of data that was rich in content and context, which provided the authors/researchers with the opportunity to conceptualize engineering partnerships through the participating individuals’ own words and actions. To accomplish an understanding of the partnership development, data were collected through multiple methods, including individual focus groups, individual interviews, researcher field notes/observations, and individual artifact emails.

The first case study is presented from the perspective of the participants (

Table 1. Participant information—first case study—Coleman Secondary School.

Name	Identity and School Affiliation	Gender	Age	Race	Teaching Experience
Alec	Engineer (Ph.D. Graduate Student)	Male	32	White	University Graduate Assistant
Darryn	Science Teacher	Female	39	Black	Secondary School— 12 years
Emma	STEM Technology Teacher	Female	41	White	Secondary School—18 years

) at Coleman Secondary School. The data collection pattern included the following: (1) general questions in teacher and engineering student focus groups, (2) field note observations, (3) insight from the personal interviews with two teachers and one engineer, and (4) review of unmediated email communications. The authors/researchers created an outline of the engineering partnerships by viewing the case site (two teachers and one engineer with input from an educational liaison expert) for participant beliefs (focus groups and interviews), classrooms interactions (field notes and emails), how the lessons unfolded—implementation (field notes and emails), and why the classroom events occurred as they did—cause and effect (focus groups, interviews, field notes, and emails). Thus, triads were formed with the K-12/secondary teachers, engineer, and educational liaison/researcher. The author/researcher for this study identified themes from the collected data using open coding (what was happening), axial coding (making connections between what was happening), and selective coding (identifying central concepts) from grounded theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

The second case is also presented from the perspective of the participants (

Table 2. Participant information—second case study—Saber and Rysen Secondary Schools.

Name	Major	Gender	Team	School	Year
Rose	Science—Physics	Female	Cosmic Radiation	Rysen	‘18–’19
Ray	Engineering—Mechanical	Male	Cosmic Radiation	Rysen	‘18–’19
Randy	Education—Social Studies	Male	Cosmic Radiation	Rysen	‘18–’19
Sam	Science—Physics	Male	Speed of Sound	Saber	‘18–’19
Seth	Engineering—Electrical	Male	Speed of Sound	Saber	‘18–’19
Sandy	Education—English	Female	Speed of Sound	Saber	‘18–’19

) at two separate, rural schools, Rysen Secondary School and Saber Secondary School. The pattern used to collect data included the following: (1) insight from the personal interviews with the undergraduates of each team and (2) field note observations. The authors/researchers created a picture of the engineering partnerships within each of the teams for review by viewing the case site (one science major, one engineering major, and one education major) for what the participants believed (interviews), what happened in the classrooms (field notes), how the lessons unfolded (field notes), and why the events happened as they did (interviews and field notes). All the participants in the second case identified as white and were traditional college students between 18 and 22 years of age.

As a qualitative study, a socio-cultural theoretical framework was used as the lens to view the individuals’ perspectives, experiences, and engineering meaning-making processes, and what these meant to the partnership itself. Vygotsky’s (1978) theories stress the role of social interaction in the creation of knowledge. He emphasized that the community of individuals plays a key role in building understanding, and he emphasized culture and experience in context. According to his work, thoughts and reasoning develop through social interactions. Vygotsky’s notion of the social construction of knowledge was referenced throughout this partnership study. Contemporary frameworks echo this focus; for instance, Cunningham et al. (2023) argued that engineering learning is inherently situated in socio-cultural contexts and called for socially engaged engineering curricula that connect technical activities with social and ethical dimensions. The socio-cultural positions on identity in engineering education emphasize how power dynamics and community norms shape learning (Huff & Ross, 2023).

Two research questions guided this comparative case study using the socio-cultural lens:

• What is the meaning of partnership to everyone in each case?
• How do the individuals negotiate the work in their partnership in relation to engineering education lessons?

Additionally, one lesson from the first case study at Coleman Secondary School (Concrete and Acid Rain) is highlighted as an example of an engineering lesson in Appendix A. This activity provides an example of the K-12/secondary science content engineering education lesson implementation. It is meant to showcase the work of the participants and their interactions that led to the creation of the lesson.

3. Context and Results

3.1. First Case Study

Coleman Secondary School, the site of the first case study, was a public school that served only upper secondary students in a Midwest urban area in the USA. It was a school implementing a redesign process that was phasing in a new curriculum while phasing out parts of an older curriculum. There were approximately 300 students in the school, and 90% were underrepresented in STEM professions, while 84% of the students qualified for free or reduced-cost lunch. There were approximately 25 students in each of the teachers’ classes.

Darryn, one of the teachers at Coleman Secondary School, was energetic and spoke loudly and definitively, with an air of authority. However, she spoke to the students with respect. Darryn’s physical science classroom was large and had a slightly non-traditional feel. The wall included inspirational sayings such as “Let the choices you make today be choices you can live with tomorrow.” The room was comfortably messy, with some glassware on the back counter and stacks of papers and books in various locations. Each student had access to a movable cabinet full of laptop computers, and the students used these computers frequently during the researcher’s observations. Darryn was often walking around the tables and helping students in her room.

Emma, the second teacher at the same school, often encouraged others. She engaged students in light banter about happenings outside of the classroom, but she expected the students in her classes to work on-task for the entire class period. Emma’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) technology classroom was slightly smaller than Darryn’s classroom and had a more traditional setup. Her room, like Darryn’s, had a movable cabinet filled with laptop computers. She also had inspirational posters that were varied and included motivational sayings such as “Make an effort: Not an excuse.” Emma was often walking around the student tables and helping students, and her classroom planning showcased teacher-centered curriculum materials.

In both classes, the students were extremely social, and they interacted constantly. They laughed together and asked questions of the teacher and each other. The questions that they asked were often not science-content questions. Especially at the beginning of class, both teachers encouraged the students to stay on task, reduce talking, sit down, and decrease any distractions before the lessons began. Once the students were working, the students often stayed on-task with a few interruptions. Classes often ended with a rush to clean up materials and students settling down for dismissal. As a whole, the classrooms functioned well, and the teachers controlled all aspects of their spaces.

A typical day for students, based on 12 full-day observations of Darryn’s and Emma’s classrooms, included a classroom greeting and other routines. Usually, both teachers wrote the class objectives and an agenda for the students on the board, and the students worked on a warmup question first. The students spent approximately 15 min on the warmup question before moving on to the activity of the day. Homework was not discussed, and at the end of each class, the teachers gave the students a verbal goodbye to signal that the students could leave.

Alec was the engineer who worked with Darryn and Emma at Coleman Secondary School. He came to the USA after growing up in the Middle East and receiving his master’s degree in Europe. He had worked in industry outside of the USA as a project construction engineer but was in his third year of graduate school obtaining his Ph.D. in civil engineering when the study occurred. His only prior teaching experience was working as a graduate assistant with his advisor, and he seemed interested in bringing his engineering skills to secondary science and mathematics students.

The educational liaison was the educational expert in the triad (teacher, education graduate student, and educational expert) at Coleman Secondary School. She led the teacher and engineer to consider the content and applications, societal impacts, and career connections of each lesson presented. Together, the group of three explored the lessons for the student impact revolving around the STEM content and future occupational pathways.

Overall, Alec, Darryn, and Emma, who worked together for 20 h a week, had a relaxed and isolated working relationship. Alec, the engineer, and Darryn and Emma, the teachers, worked with students during class, but not noticeably with each other. There was little interaction between the two teachers before, during, or after school or with Alec during class. During these typical class days, the teachers did not formally integrate Alec into the classwork or procedures for the class. Although they were in the same room, Alec never worked as an integrated co-teacher with either Darryn or Emma but instead presented material as additions to what was presented.

Typically, the teachers expected Alec to help students as they worked, and if he was not in the classroom, then the students had one less engineering resource to support their learning. For example, in one observation, while the students worked in table groups on an engineering applications packet, Alec and Emma were never at the same table of students at the same time. During this same class period, Emma, the teacher, took the lead as disciplinarian by reminding students to stay on-task with their work packets. The only interaction between Alec and Emma was at noon when Alec asked what the students should do next. Emma answered that the students should write questions and answers before they engaged in any computer work. After this brief exchange, Alec and Emma continued helping students at different tables until Emma dismissed the class. During another observation in a different classroom, as class started, Darryn asked Alec to help a student with a worksheet on atoms. She said, “Can you help me?” Alec replied with a “Yes” and then Darryn explained about the student’s needs and the worksheet. After that brief interaction until the class ended, neither of the two participants communicated verbally or non-verbally. Although Alec is an engineer with a background in STEM, neither teacher took advantage of the person-resource in the classroom. Alec, Emma, and Darryn shared limited classroom interactions, but despite the lack of classroom communication between them, there were aspects of partnership building.

3.2. Second Case Study

The second case study is comprised of two separate teams in two separate years. The first team is the Cosmic Radiation Team from 2018 to 2019 at Rysen Secondary School. In addition to the school’s name, all the participants have names that begin with the letter R. The second team is the Speed of Sound Team also from 2018 to 2019 at Saber Secondary School. All the participants have names that begin with the letter S. Both teams and contexts are described in this section, and all the names are pseudonyms. The activities in the second case occurred both inside and outside of the traditional classroom setting.

3.2.1. Cosmic Radiation Team

During the first year of the second study, the 2018–2019 Cosmic Radiation Team engaged with Rysen Secondary School, a public school in a rural area of the Western USA. The team developed four lessons/interactions with Rysen Secondary School as part of its informal STEM outreach. Although the lessons were aligned with the NGSS, like the first case study, the K-12/secondary student learning was not assessed.

Randy, the secondary social studies education major (or preservice teacher), exuded an easygoing personality and ready sense of humor. Randy attended team meetings and participated in developing and building the payload, or data collection device, which consisted of a Geiger counter to measure cosmic radiation, an Arduino microprocessor to record the data, and various shielding materials. The team built a control device without shielding for a test launch. In the Rysen Secondary School, the team asked students to form two competitive groups for a space race and develop a shielding mechanism from a pre-approved set of materials. The Rysen secondary students then launched their payloads side by side and recorded which group shielded cosmic radiation more effectively. Randy arranged the lessons as two pre-launch lessons, one to introduce the activity, form groups, and begin working on shielding, the launch itself, and one short post-launch activity to view results of each Geiger counter data point recorded. In the classroom, Randy circulated among every student and led whole-class instruction and discussion. Randy also kept the 90-min class on track and monitored student progress.

Ray, the mechanical engineering major, seemed to carefully consider his words before speaking. He developed and coded the Arduino to communicate with the Geiger counter. He shared his knowledge with the other team members, including teaching the others about radium watches and how to solder. In the classroom, Ray led a tutorial for a small group of Rysen secondary students to learn to code the Arduino for their group.

Rose, the physics and astrophysics major, spoke very infrequently but volunteered for tasks outside of the project. She mentioned the cosmic radiation work during one meeting early in the project and conducted background research about it, which the team delivered as direct instruction during the first lesson. Rose appeared to be most comfortable working individually with K-12/secondary students, often taking a seat next to them.

In the meetings and the Rysen Secondary classroom, the Cosmic Radiation team appeared to have mutual trust and respect and displayed ease in working together. They laughed together, played computer games together during travel time between Rysen Secondary school and their homes, and practiced their classroom speech (or direct instruction) together. They met weekly in a space designated for the project and mentioned meeting socially outside of working on the project. After the project’s completion, they reunited to present their work at a local education conference. In the Rysen Secondary classroom, they functioned as experts in their major area of expertise and appeared to be satisfied with their roles—Ray as the computer programmer, Rose as the chemistry expert, and Randy as the guest teacher. The Rysen Secondary classroom teacher allowed the team full autonomy with the students’ learning and functioned in an assistant mode when the team was present

The author/researcher was a detached observer pre, during, and post project implementation. As a limited-resource insider who provided feedback for lessons, the researcher observed that, overall, Randy, Ray, and Rose had a relaxed, friendly, and trusting working relationship. There were aspects of partnership building and the team overall achieved a high level of STEM integration and partnership that will be outlined later in this article.

3.2.2. Speed of Sound Team

The 2018–2019 Speed of Sound team worked at Saber Secondary School, which was a public school in a rural area of the Western USA. The team developed five lessons/interactions with the teacher as part of its informal STEM outreach. As with the Cosmic Radiation team, although the lessons were aligned with the NGSS, student learning was not assessed.

Sandy, the secondary English education major (preservice teacher), exuded a businesslike, no-nonsense manner. She attended the team meetings early on and was decisive in taking the project in a different direction. Initially, the team had expressed interest in pursuing measuring the electromagnetic field at higher altitude, but she indicated concern about translating this idea into lesson plans. The team changed their focus to measuring the speed of sound. As time went on, however, she did not participate in developing and building the payload, which consisted of a 3D-printed box to bounce sound, an Arduino microprocessor to record the time, and a transmitter to emit sound. In the Saber Secondary School classroom, she designed lessons that explored the concept of sound as a wave and reinforced the design of the experiments. She arranged these lessons as three pre-launch lessons. The post-launch lesson invited students to graph the data recorded by sensors on the balloon and interpret the graphs to determine if the temperature, air pressure, and humidity correlated to a change in the speed of sound. In the classroom, Sandy circulated among every student and led whole-class instruction. She directed content-related questions to the other two team members. She used classroom management techniques such as rhythmic hand claps to keep students focused on the lesson.

Seth, the electrical engineering major, had wide-ranging interests and commitments outside of his coursework (e.g., military duty, wedding, new house). He designed and printed the box for the payload. He expressed interest in finding applications for the speed of sound project. He spoke in the final interview about military planes accounting for the speed of sound while flying at high altitudes, pilots taking account of the low temperatures, and so forth, but confessed he had not researched these applications. In the classroom, Seth seemed uncertain and often stood to the side holding notes, although he became visibly engaged when answering student questions. He mentioned that he struggled with deciding how to level his answers so that K12/secondary school students would understand them. Seth also indicated confusion with some of the activities that Sandy had developed, as well as uncertainty about proper classroom management techniques.

Sam, the physics and astrophysics major, had a tendency to think through ideas by talking, and sometimes the other two team members appeared to move on without him. He ventured the first idea of electromagnetism for the project but conceded the idea without vigorous argument once the other members decided against it. Sam indicated interest in exploring the philosophical underpinnings of “doing science,” and he often answered student questions in a somewhat long-winded way. This had the effect of generating even more student questions, and before long, the topic had become tangential. Sandy often broke in and redirected the 50-min class to the day’s activity, while Sam indicated confusion with aspects of the lesson Sandy had developed and indicated that he did not “see how that fit in.”

In both meetings and the Saber Secondary School classroom, the Speed of Sound team appeared to work independently. Before the project, Sam and Seth knew each other, and Sandy held the impression that “they kicked me out of their meetings” during development of the payload. On the other hand, Sandy developed the lesson plans with little input from Sam or Seth. A few minutes before each K-12/secondary lesson, Sam and Seth read through the lesson plan, possibly for the first time. In the Saber Secondary School classroom, Sandy was the clear leader, while Sam and Seth stood to the side. Sam was eager to answer questions but indicated that he “didn’t know how far to go down the rabbit hole” or how to stay focused within the constraints of a 50-min class. The partner teacher allowed the team full autonomy in the classroom but often intervened for classroom management or to clarify instructions.

As with the Cosmic Radiation team, the author/researcher was a detached observer during the Speed of Sound team project. As a limited-resource insider who provided feedback on lessons, the researcher observed that, overall, Sandy, Seth, and Sam had an independent working relationship. The aspects of partnership building were still at a basic stage, and a level of trust required for a true partnership did not appear to be achieved. Overall, the team achieved a lower level of STEM integration and partnership interactions than the Cosmic Radiation team

3.3. Partnership Meaning—Cross-Case Analysis

The authors present context in this section regarding the meaning of the term partnership as well as continuing to explain the findings. As a reminder, there are two case studies utilized in this article, one showcases data from 2010 to 2011 and the second highlights data from 2018 to 2019. Did all the participants involved believe that they were in a partnership? The answer in both cases is yes, but how they functioned in a partnership shows differences.

In the first case study at Coleman Secondary School from 2011, with the engineer and two teachers, all three participants answered “yes” to being in a partnership. In an interview, Alec stated, “I would say it was a partnership, yeah. Even if the partnership was sometimes just–uh—of a shorter frame or sometimes just for this [class] we are partners. I’m doing this and you’re doing this.” In a separate interview, Darryn agreed when she claimed, “I’ve enjoyed the partnership, and I think that the students truly benefit from that.” When asked if her relationship with Alec was classified as a partnership, or collaboration, in a different interview, Emma said that “… it was a collaboration in that we worked together … equally to give something to that partnership but there were times that he had more to give … and there were times that I had more to give….” Thus, all three Coleman Secondary School participants agreed that their time together was spent in a partnership.

Importantly, the three individuals valued each other as well as the partnership. Alec asserted that he “[respects the way Emma treats] me and teaches her class. Each [teacher] has a different way to manage and teach the class, but I was impressed with both of them…. That is something worthy of respect.” Darryn stated that Alec “is an educator while he is in my classroom. So, I have to respect him for that. Also, he works extremely hard…” Emma echoed Darryn’s sentiments when she said:

I think [Alec] has a huge amount of knowledge. He has a very unique perspective. He was good with the students. He could talk to them and explain things in a way that I necessarily couldn’t because of not having the engineering background.

Also, Alec respected the teachers for their management skills, while Darryn respected Alec for his hard work, and Emma respected him for bringing engineering into her classroom. According to the literature, these individuals needed respect from each other and a foundation for their relationships to ensure an educational partnership model (e.g., Adams & Lanford, 2021; A. C. Burrows, 2011; Thomas & Sorbara, 2023). For future partnership growth to occur, respect and a foundational base were required (e.g., A. C. Burrows, 2011; Juuti et al., 2021; Longo & Gibson, 2023). All three individuals had respect, albeit for different reasons, for each other, and they verbalized that they were in a partnership, but evidence to support strong relationship foundations was less apparent.

If, according to the three participants, they were in a partnership, and they respected each other, then how did the Coleman Secondary School participants construct the meaning of their partnership? The partnership’s meaning was discovered through the participants’ expectations, goals, and agendas, which were identified and exemplified through their interactions. Once the data were collected and analyzed, four themes emerged. The four themes (or actions) that built all the partnerships included (1) lesson creation, (2) communication, (3) engineering content clarity, and (4) student learning.

Similarly, in the second study from 2018 to 2019, three of the four themes (or partnership actions) were the same. Both the Cosmic Radiation and Speed of Sound teams contributed to partnership building in the areas of (1) lesson creation, (2) communication, and (3) engineering content. Due to the informal outreach nature of the second case study, there was no assessment of student learning and therefore no measurable contribution to student learning to compare, and this also mirrors the first study.

3.3.1. Lesson Creation and Communication

Although student learning gains are not reported in this article, the first study at Coleman Secondary School showed that lesson creation and communication emerged as the first two important aspects of partnership meaning. Alec and Emma (engineer and teacher, respectively) each referenced lesson creation in the focus groups and interviews. In both the field notes and final interview, one difference was that Emma linked communication to lesson creation, unlike the other two individuals. Her comments supported the meaning of a partnership, as partnerships should include communication. In one focus group, Alec was optimistic about the upcoming lessons. For example, in relation to how he helped Emma, he stated, “It could be like for a lesson, or during the class and stuff.” Emma highlighted the lesson interaction when she said, “When we were leading up to our major [lesson], we were spending three to five hours for a couple weeks, before that we decided on where and how it was going to be done and what we were going to do.” Emma, during her final interview, was pleased with Alec’s lessons and at the communication between the teachers and engineer on lessons and even claimed that they:

… spent a lot of time emailing back and forth on lessons that [Alec] was doing…. He was very good about updating me on what his lessons were, and this is what I’m doing in class …. He did a really good job when he did his lessons.

Although Darryn (another teacher in the first study at Coleman Secondary School) mentioned lessons only during her final interview, she talked about the lesson process quite extensively when she explained:

… in our interactions [Alec] talked about the lessons that were upcoming or the content that I was planning on covering, and I would leave it open for him to suggest ways to enrich those topics. Other times we would kind of sit there and pick each other’s brains. What can we do for this? Or what can we do for this? Or how can we infuse construction engineering or—I’m sorry—construction science or civil engineering topics into this lesson?

These sentiments were in line with Alec’s comments about interactions and communication. When speaking about lessons in Darryn’s class, Alec stated, “with Darryn, every time I go to the class and she has something new, I have a goal for the lesson. If I have any input, she is really flexible in incorporating this new idea in her lesson.” Although Alec mentioned flexibility, it is communication that is the focus of the statement. Then, in the final interview, Alec expressed concern over the communication feedback from his two teachers. Alec’s communication concern was grounded in an overall feeling of dissatisfaction with the partnership. He stated, “[It] didn’t happen this year… I always had the feeling … that they glanced through [the lesson]…, but they didn’t really go into detail. So, they didn’t take the time to go through the lesson plans.” Even the teacher, Darryn, felt that something was missing during the year. She explained the following:

… No, I don’t feel like most of the decisions that we made were necessarily shared decisions, even when it came down to the major [lesson] that he was going to do. It’s not like he gave a choice of three [lessons] and we made a decision to choose the same one, it was kind of like he came up with [the lesson], we thought it was great, but those decisions weren’t necessarily shared between him and [us], so I can’t really support that shared decisions was a big factor in our partnership.

Thus, lesson creation and communication at Coleman Secondary School, even if it was not good communication, played a large role in how the participants identified the meaning of their partnership. Even when they spoke of other content, the individuals repeatedly returned to the topics of lesson creation and communication, which were expectations of their work together. This is also true for the second case from 2018 to 2019 with undergraduate college student participants. Strong communication helped the Cosmic Radiation team (2018–2019) develop a strong rapport, which translated into a cooperative teaching style in the classroom. In contrast, but still a part of the second study, the Speed of Sound team (2018–2019) often appeared disorganized in the classroom, which was initially surprising because the lesson plans were developed by a single person. However, because the other two team members may not have felt supported or respected, they were left bewildered by active learning and classroom management techniques and uncertain how to explain engineering concepts to a younger audience.

3.3.2. Incorporating Engineering Content and Increasing Student Learning

The third and fourth aspects of the partnership meaning were incorporating engineering content into the classrooms and increasing student learning. For the participants in both case studies, they expected to create engineering content and increase student learning in all the classes. The participants brought engineering content into their lessons (Table 1 and Table 2), as well as focusing on student learning, as a foundation of their partnership meaning.

In the first study at Coleman Secondary School, as mentioned by Darryn, the individuals discussed how engineering concepts played a part in the lessons. Alec, Darryn, and Emma incorporated engineering into the classroom with secondary students’ learning, and this continued to define their partnership. Alec spoke of bringing engineering into the classroom in the focus groups, field notes, interviews, and email exchanges. In the focus group, Alec spoke of prioritizing work based on the lesson needs. Emma had a similar outlook when she claimed, “…My expectation was to have [Alec] come into class and then show the students what engineering is. …Bringing in people to get a wider feel for what that is about, and what they think of when they are interested.”

In the second case study from 2018 to 2019, stronger teamwork skills (especially with the Rysen Secondary School participants) were directly translated into more active, cooperative, and hands-on lessons in the Rysen and Saber classrooms. The Cosmic Radiation team (2018–2019) demonstrated the strongest teamwork skills involving the engineering content and a focus on student learning. Overall, they developed a stronger partnership than those at Coleman Secondary School (the first case study) or the Speed of Sound team (part of the second case study). Partnership was showcased by the Cosmic Radiation team at Rysen Secondary School, where lessons engaged students in building engineering payloads together. The students directly touched items that went into the upper atmosphere (in a high-altitude balloon). However, the Speed of Sound team (2018–2019) in the second case study at Saber Secondary School often were not as inclusive as the Cosmic Radiation team. Saber’s participants mostly worked independently on two unrelated engineering projects: the payload development and the Saber Secondary classroom experience. This translated into little mention of the engineering payload; the science and engineering majors brought it to the classroom for only one day to show the students. The Saber Secondary students did not build or touch anything that went into space, and their lack of connection and few questions asked seemed to be a result of their detached integration. Although the students witnessed the launch, and later graphed the data collected by sensors attached to the balloon, the author/researcher observed a marked lack of questions, hypotheses, and speculations about the balloon’s flight, landing, and recovery. This was a missed opportunity for the Speed of Sound team.

For both the 2011 and 2018–2019 cases, the fourth partnership aspect of increasing student learning often happened spontaneously. For example, in 2011 at Coleman Secondary School, Alec brought up an extra engineering concept when he interjected during Darryn’s class that sand is a cleaning agent and has a lot of surface area. Alec brought his engineering background into the content of the class discussion. He emphasized his engineering background in his interview, “I was more focused on bringing like engineering reality into the classroom.” Darryn agreed:

I expected Alec to bring in some fresh ideas and also ideas based on current technology and current scientific discoveries. I … expected an outside resource for science and technology or new type of activities that can help to enrich the students’ learning.

In one email to Darryn regarding an upcoming engineering lesson on concrete deterioration, Alec described that “we will just use Coke [soda/soft drink/carbonated beverage] instead of HCl, which should work out and at least change the pH of the concrete cubes. Coke has a pH of 2.5, which should be enough.” Here, Alec’s knowledge of concrete and its weakening after construction helped to situate the specifics of the lesson. Darryn did not respond to Alec. Similarly, Emma mentioned incorporating engineering ideas frequently during her interview. She stated that:

[Alec] is at the university. I think he has more knowledge about how engineers use the information that we are teaching [students] on a lower level, but [they can] use that information to further their careers. And I think he gave a very unique perspective of what is out there for our students, when they don’t normally get that from just the teachers at the high school [secondary] level.

In relation to the expectations of knowledge, the teachers valued Alec’s contribution, but Alec never mentioned valuing the teachers’ knowledge. Instead, he only mentioned respecting them for their classroom management skills. The expectations of Alec, Darryn, and Emma reflected the need to bring engineering into the classroom that was a general goal of engineering education. The partnership fulfilled the surface needs of the participants, and the teachers maintained their respect for Alec’s knowledge. Emma continued:

I think Alec has a huge amount of knowledge. He has a very unique perspective. He was good with the students. He could talk to them and explain things in a way that I necessarily couldn’t because of not having the engineering background. He was a huge resource in the class.

Here, she echoed the statements of Darryn regarding the benefit of Alec’s engineering background with regard to classroom content and student learning, but in general terms instead of specific instances.

These findings show that lesson creation was one of the four aspects that defined the meaning of partnership for the first study at Coleman Secondary School. This aligns with observations by Gillen et al. (2021) and T. J. Kilty and Burrows (2022) that K-12/secondary partnership participants often focus on the immediate collaborative product (lessons) more than on deeper collaboration processes. The individuals repeatedly highlighted creating lessons in their conversations with each other and with the educational expert. There was little focus on the classroom assessments resulting from the five engineer-created lessons or any teacher lessons. Even when the individuals spoke of the other three actions that defined their partnership (communication, incorporating engineering ideas, and increasing secondary student learning), it was in relation to the engineering lessons. The teachers mentioned classroom assessments (e.g., student projects) twice, but Alec did not mention them at all. Further, Emma linked communication to lesson creation. Alec talked about incorporating engineering ideas. Alec and Darryn shared an email that referenced an engineering concept and lesson change, but this was not typical. Alec interjected engineering ideas into the classrooms on occasion, whereas Alec and Emma displayed the goal of increasing K-12/secondary student learning and linked it to incorporating engineering ideas in the classroom.

For the second case, the Speed of Sound team, there were parallels between the participants and the first case at Coleman Secondary School. Although the non-education majors (i.e., science and engineering) valued the social interactions with K-12/secondary students and the skill the education major possessed, there were communication concerns with the team and secondary teacher. The Speed of Sound engineer (i.e., Seth), at Saber Secondary School, spoke of his concern about how to bring complicated content to a younger audience. Overall, the non-education majors were not skilled at educating children and seemed bewildered about how to relate to children let alone teach them complex concepts. This led to more communication issues and stagnated partnership growth, whereas the Cosmic Radiation team (from the second study) created engineering lessons that brought together the team as well as the students they were teaching.

3.3.3. Overall Partnership Meaning Comparisons

In general, each case showed varying levels of partnership (pre, partnership, or Partnership, as defined by Mullinix, 2001) relating to the four themes (or actions): (1) lesson creation, (2) communication, (3) engineering content clarity, and (4) student learning. One school in the second case study showcased the most partnership dimensions. The Cosmic Radiation team (2018–2019) was the strongest in the four areas and showcased a strong partnership (with a little p), followed by the Speed of Sound team (2018–2019) showing a pre-partnership with limited partnership aspects (little p), and then the Coleman Secondary School participants showing the most limited pre-partnership. Interestingly, the Coleman team spent the most time together (i.e., 20 h a week) yet never achieved the level of interaction that the teams in the second case study reached.

3.4. Partnership Negotiations Explained

Returning to RQ2’s focus on how the partners negotiated their collaborative work, we asked the following: If their partnership meanings formed around creating lessons, incorporating engineering ideas into the classroom, increasing communication, and increasing secondary student learning, then what did the partnership negotiations look like? For these studies, negotiations were defined as a back-and-forth dialogue, between at least two individuals, to reach an agreement over a certain matter or topic. After analyzing the data, there were only a few true negotiations. However, based on the data analyzed, the researcher established that the dialogue was often truncated, and thus the negotiations were at best emerging and only scratched the surface of true negotiation. Nonetheless, these abbreviated negotiations are shown here as a basis for comparison.

Mostly, the engineering lessons played a central role in showcasing negotiations, as did time and supply use. To begin, the authors/researchers show examples from the first case study at Coleman Secondary School. Compromises were an important feature of these negotiations. Darryn stated:

… If the situation changes, then you know some aspects should also change. And you know, at the beginning, you don’t always know what’s needed from the beginning to the end. So, when you find out what’s needed then of course you’ve got to change some of your expectations, some of your characteristics, and compromise.

Alec, Darryn, and Emma all mentioned engineering lesson creation while explaining negotiations. For Alec, he explained that the lessons helped to increase the negotiations between the teachers and himself. In the initial focus group, Alec said, “Obviously, if you have like, if you have a [lesson] coming up, then you talk about the [lesson] and the goals of this [lesson] and when and how you will do it.” The idea of interaction to improve the lessons and overall teaching, in a give and take fashion, was still strong in the final interview when Alec stated:

I was expecting for them to give me feedback, maybe on a weekly basis, just so I can improve myself in the way I work with them, lessons, and the students. And at the same time my duty or my responsibility was if I saw something wrong in the way they dealt with students or if they made a mistake in whatever subject/content they were teaching to the, in a respectful way to highlight it, or to like approach them and tell them about it.

Later, during the same interview, Alec talked about the negotiations between himself and the teachers as he referred to his lessons again. Alec claimed:

We always make them together. Like we talk about if someone has an idea, if it was like one of my projects, activities, then we would talk about it. I would share my ideas. I would always expect them to give me feedback or input and if I say, if I see an “okay” from their side and not a lot of rejection then we would just go ahead and do it.

He continued to explain about the lessons and negotiations when he stated:

Maybe in some of the activities, that I had maybe like a different idea or about a piece in the lesson plan and the teacher has a different idea, and I think at the end we just talked about it, and we agreed on either a combination or one of them.

The teachers also shared Alec’s focus on engineering lessons during the negotiations in the classroom. For example, Darryn affirmed:

I also feel like at the beginning of the year we did some negotiation as to what [lessons] [Alec] thought he was going to do and when, based on our pacing guides and our individual core classes, you know like, if we were doing something in physical science we would negotiate and make this better for him to do the physical science topic but in the STEM education class after you guys are finished we can reconnect, you know, just negotiations about when would be the best time for him to do his [lessons], and with that I think he was going to do his first [lesson] with me first, and then because of that negotiation he did it with Emma in STEM Ed class. So, we had to negotiate lesson topic structures.

When discussing the decision-making process, Darryn agreed that she and Alec made the decisions, stating, “I’d like to say both of us” (Darryn’s Final Interview). Emma claimed, “I think we mainly shared decisions. It was … a collaborative kind of sharing of decision making. … We would work together on … lessons and things that went on in the classroom. … Talk about them and kind of come to a shared agreement.” Unlike Alec, Emma seemed satisfied with the process and partnership. These interactions highlight the participants beginning to negotiate lesson ideas and shape their partnership meaning in the process. Alec sounded dissatisfied with the kind of support he received during the partnership, but he never directly stated that fact. Similarly, this was echoed by the engineering majors in the second case study. Both engineering majors stated in the final interviews that either they were “not” teachers, “not good” at teaching, or they expressed uncertainty and lack of confidence, describing they had “never done this before.” Their self-criticisms and doubts were not based on any feedback, nor did either of them ask for feedback.

This section showcased what partnership negotiation is and what it could look like in real-life interaction. Negotiations often appear as “back and forth” communications or engagements. In the following section, the author/researchers discuss partnership negotiations with examples from each case and resurface the discussed dimensions of partnership.

4. Negotiations

Based on the research findings, negotiating challenges and clarifying expectations should play a prominent role in partnerships. Yet, between Alec and the teachers (at Coleman Secondary School) and among the undergraduate interdisciplinary team (at Saber Secondary School), negotiations only extended to lesson interactions or the product theme. Although expectations, duties, feedback, and dissatisfaction were mentioned during some focus group and interview sessions, there was no evidence of full negotiations during the observations or in email exchanges.

Once again, as seen with the partnership meanings, there was a breakdown, not just in the number of interactions but also in the levels of the interactions. Thus, the relationship itself was a barrier to negotiation. This barrier appeared to interfere with the negotiations that centered on the creation of the lessons. For example, at Coleman Secondary School, Darryn, during her final interview, explained that the lesson ideas “were all fine and we all contributed, we all received [something], but then [Alec got feedback from others too].” This statement was an average endorsement of the creation process, but it should have been a place where negotiations happened. Here, the issue was not in the lesson itself, but in where trust in the partnership actually existed. This apparent irritation about the process, and the parties involved, did not appear in other places. For instance, an email exchange between Alec and Darryn described that she “made a few minor changes” to his lesson. Here, Darryn made some suggestions for Alec’s lesson, but based on her earlier statements, she felt that others influenced the final decision. It appeared that she saw no reason to engage in negotiations over the lessons. When questioned, Darryn commented that there were many moving parts to creating the lessons and that she was trying to ease the path for Alec by not giving him too many directions. Thus, her comments on lessons and other items were lessened due to her lack of voice, perceived importance, or collegiality (or a combination of these).

There were traces of distrust and miscommunication in the second case study as well, markedly in the Speed of Sound team. There was a large contrast in trust between the two teams. Although all the members were undergraduates and thus the non-education majors did not expect the education major to possess complex scientific knowledge, there were few signs of extending assistance in the Speed of Sound team. On the other hand, if the education major in the Cosmic Radiation team had questions, the non-education majors assumed they were at fault for not explaining it clearly.

Once again, as shown at Coleman Secondary School, there was an overwhelming focus on the lessons in the negotiations between the participants. The individuals mentioned other processes, which sparked negotiations. Darryn and Emma discussed time schedules, the challenges associated with these schedules, and the use of time during their final interviews. Emma explained:

Usually, [Alec] was in twice a week. He would come in anywhere from one to two of my classes. On the weeks that he wasn’t doing his [lesson] he would come in and assist the students in whatever we were doing, answer questions, bring some of his own experience in, talk to the students, he always added information to the class. On the weeks where he was doing his [lesson] obviously, we met quite a bit more often than that. Both on the weeks were he was and the weeks where he wasn’t doing his [lesson] we would sit down and discuss—you know—how things went in the classroom, what we saw, ways he could get more involved in the classroom although sometimes that was a little hard to get him to do when I was teaching and he wasn’t doing a [lesson].

Regarding time, Darryn stated, “So, a lot of our time was spent kind of like brainstorming and trying to figure out where he would be best used and where his activities would be most beneficial.” Thus, negotiating time schedules was a topic raised only by the teachers. The participants were not engaged in clarifying expectations, refining processes, or other such tasks, but negotiations with all three individuals involved some form of compromise. Alec used the term compromise during his final interview, while Darryn and Emma used the term “mutual compromise” during their final interviews. The Speed of Sound group did not use the term “compromise,” but Seth spoke of purchasing supplies to investigate Sam’s initial idea, thereby describing a compromise without explicitly stating so.

Using supplies, or actually using the physical classroom equipment, was another vehicle for negotiations for the participants. Alec referenced the use of supplies once as a means of negotiation, and Darryn did so twice. In her final interview, Darryn explained a change in the supplies used when:

[Alec] made that decision … In the actual lesson plan … we were going to use nitric acid. And I was like, “You know, we don’t really have a hood.” … So, I mean, we ultimately came to the decision together that—that may not be the best thing to do.

Supplies also caused problems that called for the clarification of expectations and the beginning of negotiations. Late in the school year, Alec approached Darryn in front of the class and a conversation ensued about supplies. Darryn talked to Alec about waiting to the last minute to obtain items, like probeware and copies, and Alec apologized and explained his reasoning for the late requests. A few more exchanges provided a solution for future requests. It was mutually decided that requests should be made at least two days in advance (via email or in person) before any materials should be expected. Later the same day, Darryn said that although this was frustrating, it was “not a huge problem.”

Thus, Alec, Darryn, and Emma centered negotiations on the lessons created, time management, and use of supplies. The participants did not engage in true negotiations where there was a series of back-and-forth interactions. The individuals rarely negotiated back and forth, and when they did, it was more of a clarification of expectations than a true negotiation. Typically, the teachers clarified for Alec what they thought he should do in the classroom. Alec was frustrated because there was no clarification of his expectations of the teachers. He expected them to provide support and feedback, but he did not receive this, and he never sought to clarify these expectations with the teachers.

5. Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Overall, the results of partnership development and meaning rely on stronger professional skills (e.g., communication) while working in engineering education and other K-12/secondary spaces. For both case studies, the lesson creations, engineering ideas, communication, and secondary student learning defined the partnership. These actions of the individuals showed their view of the partnership, and what it meant to them. Their partnership meanings steered their interactions with their teams. In creating partnership meanings, most of the individuals showed budding relationships, unclear expectations, and a focus on products (such as lessons). If the partnership’s meaning was not yet solidified, the negotiations were even more tenuous. As previously shown, the partnership negotiations revolved around engineering lessons, time management, and use of supplies. Most partnership meanings and negotiations centered on the engineering lesson content and assessments, instead of on the underlying processes that shaped the partnership. There were often limited interactions in the relationship process, and ultimately, this influenced the quantity and quality of the engineering lessons delivered and the partnership

Did the participants participate in a partnership? The answer was yes, but it was different for each team (Mullinix, 2001). Most of these participants had limited, specifically defined relationships, were beginning to build trust and earn respect, worked autonomously, and used separate strategies to produce requirements (e.g., lessons). Yet, they also exhibited some partnership dimensions (with a little p). For example, the participants worked toward mutually valued objectives (e.g., engineering content in lessons), had specified/longer-term objectives (e.g., student learning), increased capacity to access resources (e.g., negotiations), and signed a written agreement focusing on roles (as part of the grant work acknowledgements) They all believed that they were in a partnership, but they were responding to the engineering lesson creation and the perceived student learning. Since all the participants functioned mostly in a pre-partnership category, the infancy of the partnership impacted the depth of the engineering that was explored in the classroom (as evidenced by the statements made by the Coleman Secondary School participants) and the lack of negotiations and true high-level communication (evidenced by all the teams).

At Coleman Secondary School (in a pre-partnership), Alec, Darryn, and Emma worked together but superficially. In the second case study, the Speed of Sound team (2018–2019) worked together in the same way. They interacted because they needed to interact, and their relations were mostly superficial. They believed they had created a meaningful partnership based on the desire to create engineering lessons, but they had not built a relationship that would encourage and require negotiations (to move into a true partnership). For example, when the Speed of Sound team spoke of what they had learned, it was through an individualized lens. Therefore, these participants lacked the depth of relationship, or partnership, to truly engage each other to better themselves, each other, and the students with whom they worked. Achieving a more meaningful partnership would require more time and deliberate effort. The teachers were busy, and asking for negotiations in a true partnership required a time investment beyond their capacity.

On the other hand, the Cosmic Radiation team (at Rysen Secondary School in 2018–2019) did achieve a partnership (with a little p) in most areas. Their partnership meaning was stronger, and their focus on lessons, content, communication, and student learning was more consistent. This may be due to their stronger communication skills (based on the observations). The effects were measurable with more creative, student-centered, and engaging engineering lessons.

Importantly, an emerging or established relationship was not a criterion for this partnership study on partnership meaning. However, comparing the partnership meaning to the level of partnership achieved is a means of understanding the connection between them. To create the partnership meaning, the expectations, goals, and agendas of individuals were examined. The negotiations were back-and-forth interactions over a topic involving at least two individuals, but these were abridged versions of possible interactions. These interactions could have included tackled challenges, improved successes, explained misunderstandings, and/or expanded compromises. Yet, all of the individuals focused on the content of lesson creation. Therefore, even though the individuals did have similar partnership meanings, expectations, goals, and agendas, two teams (Coleman Secondary School and Saber Secondary School’s Speed of Sound team) engaged only in a pre-partnership, while one (Rysen Secondary School’s Cosmic Radiation team) was in a partnership (little p). They were connected through parallel experiences, but some were slightly deeper (e.g., communication). All three teams could have potentially achieved more for the K-12/secondary students (a dimension of their partnership meaning) with insight into their partnership growth and development.

Based on the data from both cases, the findings indicate that the partnership meaning for these teams was developed through the lessons created, engineering content used, communications with each other, and importance of student learning. The partnership strength achieved between the teachers and the outside helpers (i.e., engineer, preservice teachers, science and engineering undergraduate students) influenced the strength of the engineering lessons. The lessons were adequate but did not bring true participant expertise because of the partnership limitations. Across a decade of time, partnership growth did not significantly improve between these two cases. This is important as engineering education is a focus of many nations worldwide.

The authors/researchers include suggestions here for promoting partnerships and using practical steps for strengthening STEM partnerships in K-12/secondary and collegiate settings. Impacting skill and partnership development are critical for classrooms, projects, careers, and other interactions. These recommendations are based on this comparison study and previous work (e.g., T. Kilty et al., 2021)

• All partners must begin by clearly defining the partner expectations and negotiating roles early to prevent confusion and ensure effective collaboration.
• Cultivating mutual respect and trust among team members is equally critical; openly valuing each individual’s expertise and creating explicit norms for respectful interaction fosters deeper collaboration.
• Supporting the teacher voice by intentionally validating and amplifying educators’ ideas significantly enriches partnerships, leading to more relevant and sustainable STEM outcomes.
• Intentionally investing in relationship building beyond task completion—through informal team-building or reflective discussions—strengthens communication and team resilience.

Finally, those involved in partnerships must recognize that the interpersonal aspects of partnership meaning fundamentally influence the quality and success of STEM educational experiences. Anyone building a partnership must focus deliberate attention on building quality relationships. One aspect of trust is promoting the teacher voice, which is an essential practice to building these relationships in K-12/secondary settings. Promoting the teacher voice, especially when working with perceived dominant professionals such as engineers, could promote more effective and sustained partnerships. This case study comparison highlights that understanding and investing in the growth of partnerships is critical to K-12/secondary and collegiate engineering education, especially when considering AI and other technology use. Overall, understanding the importance of partnership meaning, knowing where it comes from, and building partnerships, especially when working in engineering education, could improve the quantity and quality of the K-12/secondary lesson creation, course content, communication, and student outcomes.

6. Limitations and Implications

There were three main limitations to this study. First, the authors/researchers’ bias is difficult to mask as they worked directly with the participants over several years, and they valued engineering partnership success. Second, although the participant teams interacted for an academic year, data were officially gathered and reported only from select portions of the project years. Third, the data collected could not reflect all parts of the partnership interactions and thus only offer a glimpse into the partnerships’ meanings and negotiations.

Importantly, partnership insights could permeate all aspects of partner interactions in engineering education. The implications for K-12/secondary teachers include the strength of secondary engineering lessons, the sustainability of partnerships and engineering projects, and a call for attention to the power differentials and voice in engineering partnership building. This echoes recent work, which urges that educators’ perspectives be integrated from the outset of outreach initiatives to yield more meaningful collaboration (Abramowitz et al., 2024). Future studies of the interactions in developing partnerships could assist in quantifying the impact in engineering partnerships of teachers–students, students–students, and teachers–teachers (and many others). Groups such as these could benefit from greater attention to formulating and nurturing partnerships. However, creating better partnerships by cultivating relationships and encouraging change will most likely take authority beyond the participants. The authority could include the money holders, namely organizations such as the NSF and universities, that often create the regulations concerning what a partnership should be, how it should function, and what aspects define a true partnership.

Currently, across the globe, there is not an emphasis on relationship building, how partnerships could be fostered, or why partnerships are so important in education. Future studies could include a lesson study lens to investigate the impact of the recommendations in this article on partnership building in STEM and non-STEM disciplines. If national agendas for engineering education, industry–organizational partnerships, and achievement continue, then a focus on engineering education partnership building is necessary and vital to moving forward, especially in the age of AI and other yet unknown technologies that society will have to navigate.