This dissertation investigates the adaptation of a research-based professional development approach, Innovating Instruction, for special education teachers. This adapted approach uses assistive technology (AT) as a catalyst for helping teachers acquire design skills needed to include more inquiry-based practices. The adapted approach introduces effective teaching practices based on the learning sciences and demonstrates multiple ways to use AT to meet the needs of students. To address the “unexamined link between the use of design practices and the introduction of technology within a learning science framework,” (Meier, 2018, p.142), the Innovating Instruction© professional development framework (2018) at the Center for Technology and School Change provides a three-part approach to implement these changes: design, situate, lead. Two recent National Science Foundation grants have established the model’s positive impact on teachers’ ability to design projects, to shift from disciplinary to transdisciplinary project design, and to shift instructional thinking to include inquiry-based approaches. This dissertation responds to an important challenge in special education: the limited opportunities to prepare special education teachers to provide high-quality instruction to support all students. It uses technology as a catalyst to help special education teachers learn about design practices that engage students in inquiry practices that are culturally relevant and build on student strengths. The intervention introduced teachers to inquiry-driven design practices and used technology that supported new ways of understanding the capacity of special needs students through a six-month professional development program. The research design used was a convergent parallel mixed methods approach to analyze both qualitative and qualitative data to capture how special education teachers used AT to design inquiry-based learning. The analysis revealed a statistically significant shift over the period of the professional development, implementation, and reflection phases in terms of teachers’ ability to design inquiry-based projects that integrated AT. Also, the findings showed the importance of “situating” teachers’ needs, encouraging collaborative learning with colleagues, and developing a shared knowledge base of inquiry-based teaching strategies in special education classrooms. Findings from teacher questionnaires and interviews showed emerging leadership activities: teachers took more initiative to design projects and collaborate with other teachers in the school community.

With tightening university budgets, never before has the activity level of research grant proposal writing been more intense. With increased proposal numbers, including for the National Science Foundation's (NSF) prestigious CAREER award, has also come increased competition and decreased funding rates. This dissertation has searched for successful and unsuccessful characteristics from funded and unfunded CAREER proposals. The research focused on a study of two key subjects: 1) a corpus of 20 texts that included 12 funded proposals and 8 unfunded proposals from across NSF programs, and 2) an ethnographic analysis comprised from interviews with 14 NSF program officers (PO) from varying programs. Coding elements with the texts to uncover topical chains of content, rhetorical, and document design strategies revealed sound rhetorical moves and rhetorical mistakes. The study also illustrated evidence of adherence to or neglect of NSF-mandated writing/formatting conventions as connected to the likelihood of receiving funding. Moreover, the study revealed conventions that have developed for the genre that are not prescribed by NSF but that, nevertheless, seem to be expected. Through genre field analysis, the study's interviews with program officers (PO) revealed a system of genre-agents and player-agents that interact together in a highly rhetorical and social system. This system, comprised of locales in which a multitude of play scenarios can be enacted to exert influence, operates within fairly exact rules of play. Such rules may be published by NSF or simply be "understood," yet principal investigators (PI) are held accountable for them regardless. The ethnography created from interviews with POs revealed multiple genre field elements (e.g., genre- and player-agents, transformative locales, play scenarios, penalty conditions) as well as common mistakes and best practices. A complete mapping of the CAREER award proposal preparation, submission, and review process resulted from the study, which mapping has offered insightful strategies to expand PI (and other agents') influence on the funding process. The dissertation concluded by offering investigators a step-by-step process to identify and map the elements of the proposal genre field in which they operate.

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the perceptions of partner teachers and graduate fellows in 1 school regarding the barriers and successes made during their participation in a National Science Foundation Grant. This study included 9 partner teachers and 7 graduate fellows who participated in the Science First! NSF GK-12 Grant. There were 16 participants in this study. This study was conducted at North Side Elementary and East Tennessee State University. Partner teachers and graduate fellows were interviewed to gain perceptions of the barriers and successes of their participation in the implementation of the Science First! grant at North Side and East Tennessee State University from 2008-2013. A list of possible participants in the study was provided from the grant leadership team. The 16 participants in the study were chosen through purposeful sampling. During data analysis, 4 themes arose as successes and 4 themes arose as barriers. The success themes were (a) relationships, (b) mutual appreciation, (c) increased academic depth, and (d) professional growth. The barriers were (a) communication, (b) time, (c) expectations, and (d) preparation. Based on the research, the following conclusions were presented. The coordination of a major NSF-GK12 grant can provide STEM support and academic rigor for a high poverty school with leadership. Positive relationships between the graduate fellows and partner teachers as well as the 2 participating institutions are critical in fostering successful grant implementation. Professional growth through the grant partnerships was obtained. The participants gained a mutual appreciation for the roles and responsibilities of each other. There are ups and downs in implementing a large grant at 1 elementary school with a university, but the rewards of the potential to influence teacher practices in STEM and student learning are great. Recommendations from the study findings may assist future grant award winners or partnerships of any kind in building productive relationships between schools and other institutions.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of East Tennessee State University's summer science institute training through the effect on mean Normal Curve Equivalent science test scores of students in a Northeast Tennessee school system whose teachers participated in the ETSU summer science institute training. Data analysis were compiled using students' science NCE scores to determine if there were significant differences in scores for those students whose teachers participated in the summer science institutes and those who did not participate. Students' NCE scores were compiled from the middle school setting over a 3-year academic period: 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. Paired-samples t tests were used to analyze the effectiveness of teacher participation by comparing preparticipation and postparticipation students' science NCE scores for years 3 years. Independent-samples t tests were used to compare students' gender, socioeconomic status (free- and reduced-price meals), and NCE science scores (using 5th grade only) for 2 consecutive years of the study (2005-2006 through 2006-2007). Two analyses were used to determine teachers' participation and the effect on students' NCE science scores among two subgroups: gender and socioeconomic status. For research questions 4 and 5, a mean net gain and NCE raw scores average was performed. The findings from this study indicated significant differences in years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 favoring students of teachers who participated in the summer science institutes However, the results from year 2005-2006 showed no significant differences in students' science NCE scores of teachers who participated or did not participate in summer science institutes. In the consecutive year (2005-2006 through 2006-2007) using 5th grade only comparisons, data analyses showed significant differences in students' science NCE scores when performing NCE raw scores comparisons for gender and socioeconomic status. The comparisons for gender showed male students' science NCE scores were higher than were females' science scores. The NCE raw scores comparisons for socioeconomic status showed those students on the meals program had higher science NCE scores than did those students not on the program. There was no significance in students' science NCE scores when using mean net gain scores comparison for gender and socioeconomic status.

With funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Ira A. Fulton College of Engineering and Technology at BYU has been furthering their research on Global Virtual Teams. After Cultural Competence lessons were implemented into the classroom setting in 2010, it was decided that teaching the lessons online asynchronously could have advantages in decreasing the time professors needed to cover the content in class. In 2011, Jennifer Alexander teamed with faculty involved with the NSF grant to design and develop online Cultural Competence lessons. Beginning in August 2011 students at BYU and other cooperating campuses participated in the online Cultural Competence lessons. The online lessons were complete and ready for implementation on time; changes were made after implementation based on feedback given in student interviews; and the lessons are now ready for further development and implementation. The lessons will be shared openly with a global audience through Global Hub beginning in summer 2012.

Few South African students pass Grade 12 Physical Science with symbols required by university science, engineering and health science faculties. A large number of students who sit for Grade 12 Physical Science and Mathematics exams pass with symbols that are well below those required by the mainstream science courses at South African universities. Most South African universities have introduced Science Foundation Programmes with the aim of upgrading those students who failed to obtain university entrance symbols in the relevant subjects. Amongst the courses offered in Science Foundation Programmes is Foundation Physics. This study investigates the influence of Foundation Physics in order to find out if the programmes in different institutions are successful in empowering the students who failed to get the required entrance mark in Grade 12 Physical Science. Four South African Historically Black universities participated in this study. The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation test (FMCE) (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998) and mechanics marks were used to assess students' understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Data was analyzed from socio-cultural perspective. A total of 194 students participated in the study. Two groups of students were compared, i.e. those who did Foundation Physics (Foundation group) and those who did not do Foundation Physics (non-Foundation group). The students were tested after they had completed a mechanics module, which forms a great foundation of Physics I (Introductory Physics). Two focus group interviews were held with selected Foundation and non-Foundation students per institution. Students voiced their experiences in Physics I and Foundation Physics. Students were chosen to represent focus groups according to their performance in the FMCE test. Mechanics class performances were also used to evaluate students' performance. In order to establish how Foundation Physics is taught, Foundation Physics Lecturer interviews were conducted at all four institutions. Analysis of data showed that both Foundation and non-Foundation students performed equally in Physics I mechanics module. Foundation group performed better than the non-Foundation group in the FMCE, which is a conceptual test. Foundation Physics lecturers indicated that there were some differences in the way mechanics was taught in Physics I and Foundation Physics. These differences affected students' performance. The lecturers also indicated that there was minimal interaction between Physics I lecturers and Foundation Physics lecturers pertaining to the teaching of the two courses. What influence does Foundation Physics have on the performance of students in Physics I? This study found that students who did Foundation Physics performed better than those who did not do Foundation Physics in conceptual questions and both the groups perform equally in questions that require memorizing and calculations. This implies that Foundation Physics courses are empowering the students to perform well in Physics I. However, as it is evidenced by this research, the differences in assessment in Physics I and Foundation Physics courses in some institutions hampers Foundation Physics students' learning, because the questions asked require them to memorize without understanding, something they are not used to. The researcher recommends that Foundation Physics staff and Physics I staff should start communicating, not only about how Foundation Physics should be run as was the case in the past, but also on how best Physics I should be run. This might help in making sure that the two courses are assessed similarly at one institution. / Mathematics, Science and Technology Education / D. Phil. (Mathematics, Science and Technology Education)

Reading lies at the centre of Science Foundation Programme (SFP) students' struggle for access to the very support that such programmes offer in preparation for undergraduate study. It is a skill that is generally not sufficiently improved over an initial year of university study because, apart from being underdeveloped in previous educational and life experiences, it is not explicitly developed at tertiary level where students are generally expected to process extended texts independently in a limited time period. This study not only probes the background literacy experiences of UKZN (PMB) SFP students, but also measures the reading ability, in terms of reading comprehension, rate, and receptive non-technical academic vocabulary, with which the majority begin their studies. To better understand why many SFP students struggle with their academic reading and find prescribed science texts inaccessible, student feedback on reading difficulties and reasons for not attempting homework reading is also considered. In response to such data from the 2005 cohort of about 180 students, a means of supporting or "scaffolding" student reading was investigated. This involved preparing an experimental group of students for independent reading by initially "talking them through" an overview of the text in commonsense terms so that even the weakest readers could begin the reading process with some understanding of the extended text that had been assigned. The other half of the student cohort made up a control group who were merely instructed to read the text for homework. Overall comprehension of experimental and control groups was tested, and questionnaires about reading difficulty administered. The effect, on reading rate, of using a paraphrased version of a text was also investigated by dividing students into an experimental group to read such a version and a control group to read the original. Reading rate was measured again at the end of the year, in comparison with a mainstream sample, for potential progress. Findings suggest that SFP students are largely under-prepared academic readers who are more likely to read a prescribed text, and this with comprehension, when initially talked through a commonsense paraphrase. It is hoped that provision of such scaffolding over the course of the foundation year will develop students' confidence to attempt reading the texts assigned to them so as to become more practiced academic readers, and thus better prepared for mainstream study. / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, 2007.

Few South African students pass Grade 12 Physical Science with symbols required by university science, engineering and health science faculties. A large number of students who sit for Grade 12 Physical Science and Mathematics exams pass with symbols that are well below those required by the mainstream science courses at South African universities. Most South African universities have introduced Science Foundation Programmes with the aim of upgrading those students who failed to obtain university entrance symbols in the relevant subjects. Amongst the courses offered in Science Foundation Programmes is Foundation Physics. This study investigates the influence of Foundation Physics in order to find out if the programmes in different institutions are successful in empowering the students who failed to get the required entrance mark in Grade 12 Physical Science. Four South African Historically Black universities participated in this study. The Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation test (FMCE) (Thornton & Sokoloff, 1998) and mechanics marks were used to assess students' understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Data was analyzed from socio-cultural perspective. A total of 194 students participated in the study. Two groups of students were compared, i.e. those who did Foundation Physics (Foundation group) and those who did not do Foundation Physics (non-Foundation group). The students were tested after they had completed a mechanics module, which forms a great foundation of Physics I (Introductory Physics). Two focus group interviews were held with selected Foundation and non-Foundation students per institution. Students voiced their experiences in Physics I and Foundation Physics. Students were chosen to represent focus groups according to their performance in the FMCE test. Mechanics class performances were also used to evaluate students' performance. In order to establish how Foundation Physics is taught, Foundation Physics Lecturer interviews were conducted at all four institutions. Analysis of data showed that both Foundation and non-Foundation students performed equally in Physics I mechanics module. Foundation group performed better than the non-Foundation group in the FMCE, which is a conceptual test. Foundation Physics lecturers indicated that there were some differences in the way mechanics was taught in Physics I and Foundation Physics. These differences affected students' performance. The lecturers also indicated that there was minimal interaction between Physics I lecturers and Foundation Physics lecturers pertaining to the teaching of the two courses. What influence does Foundation Physics have on the performance of students in Physics I? This study found that students who did Foundation Physics performed better than those who did not do Foundation Physics in conceptual questions and both the groups perform equally in questions that require memorizing and calculations. This implies that Foundation Physics courses are empowering the students to perform well in Physics I. However, as it is evidenced by this research, the differences in assessment in Physics I and Foundation Physics courses in some institutions hampers Foundation Physics students' learning, because the questions asked require them to memorize without understanding, something they are not used to. The researcher recommends that Foundation Physics staff and Physics I staff should start communicating, not only about how Foundation Physics should be run as was the case in the past, but also on how best Physics I should be run. This might help in making sure that the two courses are assessed similarly at one institution. / Mathematics, Science and Technology Education / D. Phil. (Mathematics, Science and Technology Education)

This research provides performance metrics for cooperative research centers that enhance translational research formed by the partnership of government, industry and academia. Centers are part of complex ecosystems that vary greatly in the type of science conducted, organizational structures and expected outcomes. The ability to realize their objectives depends on transparent measurement systems to assist in decision making in research translation. A generalizable, hierarchical decision model that uses both quantitative and qualitative metrics is developed based upon program goals. Mission-oriented metrics are used to compare the effectiveness of the cooperative research centers through case studies. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) industry university cooperative research center (IUCRC) program is the domain of organizational effectiveness because of its longevity, clear organizational structure, repeated use and availability of data. Not unlike a franchise business model, the program has been replicated numerous times gaining recognition as one of the most successful federally funded collaborative research center (CRC) programs. Understanding IUCRCs is important because they are a key US policy lever for enhancing translational research. While the program model is somewhat unique, the research project begins to close the gap for comparing CRCs by introducing a generalizable model and method into the literature stream. Through a literature review, program objectives, goals, and outputs are linked together to construct a four-level hierarchical decision model (HDM). A structured model development process shows how experts validate the content and construct of the model using these linked concepts. A subjective data collection approach is discussed showing how collection, analysis and quantification of expert pair-wise-comparison data is used to establish weights for each of the decision criteria. Several methods are discussed showing how inconsistency and disagreement are measured and analyzed until acceptable levels are reached. Six case studies are used to compare results, evaluate the impact of expert disagreement and conduct criterion-related validity. Comparative analysis demonstrates the ability of the model to efficiently ascertain criteria that are relatively more important towards each center's performance score. Applying this information, specific performance improvement recommendations for each center are presented. Upon review, experts generally agreed with the results. Criterion-related validity discusses how the performance measurement scoring system can be used for comparative analysis among science and engineering focused research centers. Dendrograms highlight where experts disagree and provide a method for further disagreement analysis. Judgment quantification values for different expert clusters are substituted into the model one-at-a-time (OAT) providing a method to analyze how changes in decisions based on these disagreements impact the results of the model's output. This research project contributes to the field by introducing a generalizable model and measurement system that compares performance of NSF supported science and engineering focused research centers.

The study investigated the influence of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning Approach (POGIL) on Science Foundation students’ achievements in stoichiometry versus traditional lecture centered pedagogy. Two intact science foundation class groups at the University of Namibia were used as a case study. A quasi-experimental non-randomized pre and posttests control group design was used to investigate the achievement in stoichiometry. Data on student achievements were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics and Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). The ANCOVA results showed that there was a significant statistical difference in achievements when comparing the adjusted mean score (54.5%) obtained by the control group and the adjusted mean score (60.5%) obtained by students in the POGIL group; (F (1,75) = 17.990, p < 0.05). The POGIL group also showed the highest average improvement (65%) on questions related to reaction stoichiometry and limiting reagents, whereas the control group recorded improvements of about 53% in the same section. The results from the analysis of student’s test solutions revealed that the POGIL group students were able to give concrete reasons for their answers that they had obtained through numerical calculations or multiple choices and demonstrated enhanced understanding of linking various stoichiometry concepts. / Science and Technology Education / M. Sc. (Chemistry Education)