How can networks help encourage the development and professionalisation of innovative early STEM Education in a changing world?

This is a self-archived version of an original article. This version may differ from the original in pagination and typographic details. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Copyright: Rights: Rights url: Please cite the original version: CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ How can networks help encourage the development and professionalisation of innovative early STEM Education in a changing world? © Authors 2023 Published version Lundell, Jan; Borde, Badin; Filtzinger, Barbara; Hansen, Hinnerk; Henke, Nina; Oberthür, Julia; O’Donnell, Carol; Pahnke, Janna; Pasquinelli, Elena; Sadadou, Djian; Vogel, Anna-Carolina Lundell, J., Borde, B., Filtzinger, B., Hansen, H., Henke, N., Oberthür, J., O’Donnell, C., Pahnke, J., Pasquinelli, E., Sadadou, D., & Vogel, A.-C. (2023). How can networks help encourage the development and professionalisation of innovative early STEM Education in a changing world?. LUMAT-B, 8(1), 60-95. https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:fi:hulib:editori:lumatb.v8i1.1988 2023 ARTICLE LUMAT-B: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education Published by the University of Helsinki, Finland / LUMA Centre Finland | CC BY 4.0 How can networks help encourage the development and professionalisation of innovative early STEM Education in a changing world? Lundell, J.1, Borde, B.2, Filtzinger, B.2, Hansen, H.3, Henke, N.4, Oberthür, J.,4 O’Donnell, C.5, Pahnke, J. 4, Pasquinelli, E.6, Sadadou, D.7 and Vogel, A. C.4 1 LUMA Centre Finland, University of Jyväskylä, Finland 2 Siemens Stiftung, Germany 3 International Alumni Center (IAC) Berlin, Germany 4 Stiftung Kinder forschen (Little Scientists Foundation), Germany 5 Smithsonian Science Education Center, USA 6 Fondation La main à la pâte, France 7 Office for Climate Education (OCE), France Abstract: The world is becoming more complex and requires, among other skills, STEM1 knowledge and literacy of its learners, community members, and societies alike. Thus, an extensive advocacy for quality early STEM Education is needed. This paper outlines how impact networks (formed to address complex social or environmental issues) can promote the development and professionalisation of early STEM Education. It aims to support field-developing institutions to increase the impact of their work for a better and easily accessible education worldwide. After reviewing the intended impact of early STEM Education in the present context, the paper presents various network types and then assesses the network approaches of educational organisations and their network partners in multiple countries. It reflects on the various functions and success factors of networks in relation to the authors’ six organisations’ networks in their respective countries and analyses the networks according to opportunities and challenges. The paper argues for the relevance of network collaborations and for the potential of networks as agents of change, exemplifying their impact on improving STEM Education in a changing world. Keywords: STEM Education, impact network, co-creation, collaboration, IDoS Contact: [email protected] Overview This paper outlines the outcome of the International Dialogue on STEM Education (IDoS) among six members known as "IDoS peers" worldwide in 2022. IDoS peers are leading organisations who focus on early STEM Education and engage as developers in the field by promoting and professionalising high-quality STEM Education in their respective countries or impact regions in the world (see Table 1). 1 The abbreviation “STEM” stands for science, technology, (information) engineering/computer science, and mathematics. We define STEM Education as an education combining science, technology, (information) engineering, and math concepts and methods in an integrated way that transforms the discipline of science. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 61 Initiated by the Stiftung Kinder forschen and Siemens Stiftung, the IDoS peer organisations meet regularly in virtual or on-site meetings and discuss topics of strategic importance for their work in fostering STEM Education. The purpose of this paper is to outline how impact networks (formed to address complex social or environmental issues) can promote the development and professionalisation of innovative early STEM Education in a changing world (a world focused on, e.g., sustainable development, digitalisation, and changing work environments). It aims to support institutions engaging as field-developers in education to increase the impact of their work for a better and more easily accessible education. After reviewing the need for STEM Education initiatives in the present context and examining the targeted impact for which early STEM Education organisations and their partners in several countries engage, the paper presents a set of network types and how they work (Part I). The paper then reflects on the various functions and success factors of networks in relation to examples from the IDoS peers’ networks in their respective countries and analyses these networks according to opportunities and challenges (Part II). The paper argues for the relevance of network collaborations and for the potential of impact networks to emerge as the agents of change, exemplifying their impact on improving early STEM Education in a changing world (Part III). This paper reflects the current state of thinking and discussion on the topic, as shared by the involved international experts. As the dialogue with experts from science and practice continues, future adjustments are possible. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 62 Table 1. List of the IDoS peer organisations Name of peer organisation Type of organisation Year established Headquarter (Country) Region of main impact/activity Type of main funding Stiftung Kinder forschen Non-profit foundation 2006 Berlin, Germany Germany Publicly and privately funded Siemens Stiftung Non-profit foundation 2008 Munich, Germany Germany, Latin America, Africa Endowment Capital Smithsonian Science Education Center Non-profit (with quasigovernmental status in the U.S.) 1985 Washington, DC (USA) Global Gifts and grants (public and private) Luma Centre Finland Non-profit University network 2013 Helsinki, Finland Finland Publicly funded Fondation La Main à la Pate Non-profit foundation 2011 Paris, France France Publicly and privately funded Office for Climate Education Non-profit foundation 2018 Paris, France France, Latin America, SouthEast Asia, Africa Publicly and privately funded Part I: Networks for impact: Why and how networks help promote change in early STEM Education Over the past years, STEM Education has gained importance in many countries around the world, as shown by the increasing volume of publications in this domain (Li, Wang, Xiao & Froyd, 2020). Governmental and non-governmental organisations, as well as private industry who rely on building a strong workforce, are increasingly recognising the need for quality education in science, technology, engineering/computer science, and mathematics (STEM) from an early age (Freeman, Marginson & Tyler, 2019; Li et al. 2020). The authors of this paper share this view. At a time of international crises such as, for instance, the climate crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, the looming economic recession, and increasing shortage of skilled workers, the need to equip students to deal with these challenges becomes more and more pressing (Gibson, Short & O’Donnell, 2023). Quality STEM Education is the key to help children from an early age to acquire the skills needed in this changing environment. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 63 “STEM Education for Sustainable Development”, a term coined by some of the authors in a previous paper, aims at fostering knowledge and competencies for reasonable action in the world, both locally and globally. In 2019, they therein argued for an integrated approach to STEM Education for Sustainable Development (“STEM4SD Education”): “STEM Education for Sustainable Development encourages children and youth to draw on their STEM competence and the process of science as a key basis for reasonable action in our world. Knowledge, skills, and understanding of science, technology, engineering, and mathematical phenomena are vital to helping students understand global problems and support actions in society that address these challenges in a meaningful and knowledge-based way” (Pahnke, O’Donnell & Bascopé, 20192). However, delivering quality STEM Education faces many challenges. Financial resources and the widespread offer of continuing professional development programmes are limited. Single actors operating on their own run the risk of lacking the necessary size, human and financial resources, scale, and time for producing impact. To address these challenges and to promote quality early STEM Education against the backdrop of a changing world, collaboration between leading organisations who focus on early STEM Education and have the capacity to create lasting synergies among their peers is key. The IDoS peer network was formed in 2020 with the goal to build a global peer dialogue of leading educational players in the field of STEM Education that further promotes high-quality early STEM Education and increases global awareness for this high-potential education sector. Before its formation, two highly successful international IDoS conferences took place in Berlin in 2017 and 2019. Here, over 100 experts from around the world exchanged know-how and best-practice ideas and discussed challenges of early STEM Education. The conference generated a strong demand for a recurring exchange platform. As a result, the two initiators of IDoS, the Stiftung Kinder forschen (Little Scientists Foundation) and Siemens 2 The “STEM4SD Education” paper was written in connection to the IDoS 2019 conference and analyses critically how an integrated and transdisciplinary focus on inquiry-based STEM Education could serve to enhance sustainable development and build capacity for future generations. As such, the international paper promotes the idea of a transdisciplinary framework of education, acknowledging the complex context of global challenges and the need for integrating values, ethics, and world views towards the development of sustainable mindsets and using science to do social good. The paper was endorsed by the various experts participating in the IDoS 2019 conference, among others. It is an example of a combined output of authors from different networks working closely together towards a common purpose. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 64 Stiftung, decided to establish an international peer dialogue between leading organisations (the "IDoS peers") whose primary focus of work is on early STEM Education for Sustainable Development, with the flexibility to expand the topics into other areas, such as early STEM Education in the digital age. The IDoS peers share the conviction that global developments as outlined above and the demands for a quality education arising thereof can best be tackled by working together internationally. They are seeking a systematic and regular exchange, combining the global knowledge on STEM Education and its local practice, from which the organisations involved can benefit in a sustainable way. By engaging with leading institutions across the globe, the parties can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their work, implementing it in a context-specific, knowledge-based, and practice-oriented manner. The organisations contributing to the present paper draw from years of experience of working in the field of STEM Education. They all face the growing complexity of STEM Education. Not only do STEM disciplines become more intertwined as sustainable development goals evolve, but the environments in which they are being taught is changing as well, as they come to include digital tools like Open Educational Resources (OER), blendedor hybrid learning, and on-line learning (i.e. STEM Education in a progressively digitalised world). Organisations that specialise in teachers’ training and in the provision of pedagogical resources need to be able to adapt to these new environments. That is why the contributing organisations have invested extensively in building and maintaining effective network collaborations with global and local partners and formed IDoS - a network of networks operating in the domain of early STEM Education. Through the present paper, the IDoS peers aim to share networking experience with other organisations that are working in the field of STEM Education and to reflect collectively on the: • strategic role of networks; • potential impact that networks have on local and global initiatives and on the professional development in the changing field of STEM Education (and on the necessity to assess this impact); and, • success factors and the obstacles that can be encountered in building and maintaining networks. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 65 By doing so, the IDoS peers believe they can inspire and encourage other networking initiatives in the field of early STEM Education (including, for example, STEM Education for Sustainable Development and STEM Education in a world marked by increasing digitalisation). I.1 What impact do the peer organisations and their partners strive to achieve in the field of early STEM Education? The IDoS peers share a common goal: to strengthen children’s and youth’s knowledge and understanding for the future, fostering their skills and competencies necessary to live and innovate in a world with pressing global issues, challenges, and opportunities. Through their respective initiatives, the peers support quality education that encourages the development of skills such as communication, creativity, critical thinking, and collaboration (Fadel, Bialik & Trilling, 2017). Quality early STEM Education encourages children to ask questions and supports them in acquiring knowledge and methods for tackling those questions, and for developing inquiry-based learning. Quality early STEM Education not only benefits children’s literacy in the domains of science, technology, engineering/ computer science, and mathematics but also has the potential of preparing them to navigate in a complex and ever-changing world. STEM Education for Sustainable Development promotes what the Smithsonian Science Education Center refers to as sustainability mindsets (Gibson, 2021) – i.e. open mindedness and reflection; equity and justice; local and global connection; and empowerment and agency. Early STEM Education for Sustainable Development promotes children’s skills and attitudes necessary to engage with global issues on a long-term basis, empowers the next generation of decision makers capable of taking informed action about the complex socio-scientific issues facing human society, helps children become change agents in their local community, and develops the spirit of action-taking that is necessary to overcome the complex socio-scientific issues facing our planet (O’Donnell, 2018). Children can develop scientific and digital competences as well as sustainability mindsets from an early age. Nurturing these digital literacy skills and sustainability mindsets can enable individuals to contribute to making a better society through their future actions. Therefore, STEM Education is widely recognised as a crucial element in enhancing a country's science capital and driving economic growth. Early education is proven to achieve the greatest economic output and therefore the highest impact (OECD, 2020). Children with an interest in STEM subjects are LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 66 more likely to enter jobs where these skills are required, thus benefiting the market, and balancing out shortages of STEM skills that have been troubling countries for years. To ensure children are receiving quality education, the IDoS peers and their respective national and international networks focus on providing teachers and early childhood educators and caretakers with the training needed to steer children and youth in their daily exploration and understanding of the world. Their initiatives offer continuing professional development programmes including on-site trainings and online courses, professional events and symposia – and learning material designed to equip teachers and educators with skills and tools to create engaging learning environments for students in a changing world. I.2 What is the potential of networks to encourage the envisaged impact? To achieve their objectives, the IDoS peers initiated widespread impact networks that support them in their missions. Impact networks are webs of relationships connected to address, for example, social, educational, or environmental issues (Ehrlichman, 2021; Vandor, Leitner, Millner & Hansen, 2019). Such networks bring actors together for learning and coordinated actions based on a shared purpose. But what is a network in the first place? In a generic sense a network is a “set of connections that link (discrete) elements” (Levine, 2015). The roots of the term are believed to derive from the language of metallurgy and textiles and “imply interwoven strands moving in multiple directions rather than directed toward a single end” (Slaughter, 2017). All networks have a form and a structure and can be defined by their degree and density of connections as well as by their centrality (see Figure 1), which means they can be described in terms of who is connected to whom, how well they are linked to each other, and how critical and central specific nodes in a network are compared to others. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 67 Figure 1. (A) centralised, (B) decentralised, and (C) distributed structures (adapted from Baran, 1964, p. 1) Social networks link individuals or organisations and are prone to facilitate collective action. In fact, inter-organisational networks, like the networks of IDoS peers, are often deliberate means to do so. They differ from markets and hierarchies (Powell, 1990) as a more distributed structure that promises to be more resilient, more able to create change and to respond to change (Ehrlichman, 2021). How networks come into existence and how they function varies. Ehrlichman proposes three defining functions (actions or operations) and thus types of networks: Learning Networks, Action Networks and Movement Networks (Ehrlichman, 2021). Slaughter takes a different angle and differentiates networks based on their main purpose (reason for which the network exists), namely: Resilience Networks, Task Networks and Scale Networks (Slaughter, 2017). By combining the two perspectives, it is possible to categorise networks according to five core functions and purposes: improving dynamic social resilience, upscaling solutions, performing action/tasks or creating products together, inducing movement, and learning (see Table 2). LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 74 Part II: Thriving Networks: Success factors for impact network collaboration Impact networks address social problems that compel collaboration. A network of collaborators is often considered promising due to the complexity of social problems that early STEM Education faces and needs to address. When actors of early STEM Education collaborate in networks, they have an exceptional potential to generate new knowledge and to bring about ideational and structural change (Kolleck, 2012, p. 152; Kolleck, Bormann, de Haan, Kulin & Schwippert, 2016). However, networks can take up many different pathways in producing this impact. Looking at the set of networks represented by IDoS peers, we see networks that have become fully educational ecosystems, influencing and implementing national educational policies, uplifting capacities of teachers and educators significantly, building connections and fostering collaboration between formerly improbable allies, or strengthening local ties and sector wide involvement in advancing early STEM Education despite challenging conditions. In doing so, the role each network fulfils i.e., how the network promotes value, varies. Network members can support each other in doing their own work better, they can coordinate their efforts with those of other members or they can fully act together as a single agent of change. Notwithstanding their enormous potential for impact, networks are neither the answer to all problems nor are they an easy structure to develop that leads to success. As a groundwork for this paper, each IDoS peer has contributed a case study of one of its most long-standing networks (see Part I for short profiles) and each case study draws attention to both opportunities as well as challenges along the networks path. Research from management and social science also emphasises that there are fundamental and at best balanceable dilemmas associated with network collaboration (Shumate & Cooper, 2022). To support other organisations in handling these challenges, this paper now sets out to share reflections and practical findings derived from the IDoS peers’ cases. It hereby aims to encourage more actors of early STEM Education to pursue networks and collaborate to create an impact that exceeds the sum of their individual parts. Because of the diverse contexts, roles, and functions of networks in early STEM Education, there is, of course, no best practice that is appropriate for any network or any problem. Yet, despite the heterogeneity of networks built by the IDoS peers a few findings stand out as common. Figure 2 visualises them as elements and key practices that are critical for the success of a collaborative network in education. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 75 They include: the strategy and stewardship of the network (1), its resources and funding (2), the motivation and commitment of network members (3). Additionally, the application of effective practices of monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL) (4) are important factors to ensure and maintain the relevance of network activities and thereby the network’s impact. Similarly, the context and complexity of the field in which networks operate also determine how successful they are (5). Figure 2. Success factors and success criteria of networks in STEM Education for early learning II.1 Strategy and stewardship Successful networks have a clear mission that has been adopted by all network members, and a strategy which is consistent with the mission. Underlying their strategy, impact networks ideally have a Theory of Change (Rogers, 2014) which is LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 76 based on a root cause analysis of the problem that the network is trying to solve and explains exactly how the network’s activities will contribute to solve the problem and whose needs they will attend to. In early STEM Education, popular contributions of networks are creating new products or services together or scaling up already proven solutions, but networks can also advance the quality of their members’ work, advocate for policy change or to join forces with other networks for system change (Shumate and Cooper, 2022, pp. 88-90). Moreover, the activities of impact networks can claim outcomes on four different levels (Shumate and Cooper, 2022, p. 50): • outcomes on individuals who participate in network activity (I), • outcomes experienced by organisations who are part of the network (II), • outcomes on level of the network partnership itself (III), and • outcomes on impact level, i.e., on clients, on a field, community, geographic region etc. (IV). A good strategy defines expected results on all these levels. This does not imply that goals cannot or should not change over time. On the contrary, strategy and goals must remain adaptive to constantly thrive for impact. Having clarity about envisaged outcomes, about how they interconnect and what is necessary to achieve them, enables and fuels collaborative networks to take goal-directed action. Once set on track, networks need consistent stewardship. A group must have the mandate to act as a decision-making body that (re-)builds strategic focus and coordinates action towards it. Since networks must constantly prove their relevance by promoting value, stewarding entities need to combine a) addressing member needs, b) steering towards solving recognised “problems of practice” in the field and c) building linkages by integrating new knowledge. As we know, activity in collaborative networks is voluntary and driven by a diversity of interests and backgrounds. Therefore, network stewardship best follows principles such as equity and trust and takes an enabling rather than controlling approach. The importance of some such aspects is visible in the case of the Smithsonian LASER network, which has a Theory of Change (see https://ssec.si.edu/laser-model) which aligns movements of networks in STEM Education around a common theme (or “problem of practice”): starting with an initially narrow focus on promoting inquiry-based science education (IBSE) and a fairly defined approach in doing so, it became clear over time that interest in and potential for the model existed for other common themes in STEM Education as well. Instead of exercising more control and restricting application of the model, this tension was used to adjust leadership LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 77 accordingly and start to both open up and decentralise, broadening the scope to universal design to reduce barriers in STEM Education for students with disabilities, to diversifying the STEM teaching workforce, and enabling higher adaptation and impact altogether, with each network in the movement creating its own logic model or strategic plan for how it would tackle the problem of practice locally (Lee, 2022). Lessons learned especially from Siemens Stiftung’s STEMplus Territories point to another important element in establishing stewardship that combines these needs: to ensure both ownership “on the ground” and relevance to the local communities. This network was deliberately designed to “let go”, i.e., to focus on decentralising and with this seek to permanently iterate and adapt where most value can be created. For this, local networks were always initiated and scoped together with key partners in the identified community, i.e., less specific requirements to qualify for collaboration, and success indicators were not imposed but jointly created. As a result, the number of STEMplus Territories grew significantly from four to more than 40 in just three years. Form and focus on the local networks vary between focused communities and wider stakeholder networks; and a high level of leadership and engagement can be seen in the respective networks. As, for instance, Hearn (2011) further outlines this often requires for the stewarding entities to take on the role of a facilitator more so than a manager aiming to ensure that “the priorities of individual members and homogenous communities add up to or contribute towards the network’s priorities.” Particularly foundations working transnationally and internationally cannot assume a natural or granted role as they may face cultural and organisational barriers that need to be overcome to step in and be accepted in this role. As an example, OCE reflects on the beginnings of their network as a phase where cultural distances occasionally led to such tensions around roles, something that was then overcome by placing certain coordinative functions closer to the communities that were intended to be involved. Over the course of less than a year this then led to a change of culture and communication that was largely report-driven to a more mutual and collaborative approach that laid the foundation for the eventual success of the network. While networks thrive on collaboration and empowerment, what is often underestimated especially when considering field-developing and ecosystemforming initiatives is the competitiveness between actors particularly in the same sector. As outlined in the Brokering Better Partnerships Handbook (Partnership Brokers Association, 2019), it is thus essential “to explore and build on the added LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 78 value of collaboration and understand the right of all partners to gain from their engagement in the partnership as starting point to build commitment to the shared goals.” This can only be underlined by looking at the structures of LUMA in Finland or Stiftung Kinder forschen in Germany, where roles for key network nodes and partners have been defined and are also genuinely considered as critical for the success of the overall network. The example of La main à la pâte also shows how establishing a network (and governance) ultimately may lead to restructuring the entire organisation to become more distributed and connected. After the creation (and multiplication) of the Houses for Science, La main à la pâte has redefined its perimeter of action, focusing more on the production of resources for on-line teachers’ training associated with classroom activities (and less on the proposal of in-presence training sessions gathering teachers from all over the country). This is because the Houses for Science have taken the role of proposing teachers’ training in presence and in close contact with the reality of teachers, in their own territory. Moreover, following a period characterised by the creation of separate programmes, interdependencies and synergies became visible between the Houses, the foundation, and the other networks the foundation coordinates. Resources and on-line teachers’ training tutorials are more often co-created and shared to be re-used in in-presence training sessions. Also, the Houses for Science have strengthened their relationship with the other networks that the foundation coordinates and act themselves as local coordinators of projects that take place in these other networks. As a result of division of roles and labour, there is a growing trend towards greater integration, which is facilitated by the foundation’s sustained dialogue with and between the networks. II.2 Resources and funding Networks are highly resource intensive (Hearn, 2011). The visible operational coordination and the mostly invisible curation of connections and relations require investment of time and money that is largely underestimated and for many networks insufficiently available. Consequently, network-leading organisations may quickly find themselves over-mandated and under-resourced, setting in motion a critical downward spiral. This can unfortunately often still be seen in grassroot and LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 79 innovative bottom-up initiatives that are certainly also needed in transforming STEM Education and remains a challenge for networks. The IDoS peers arguably are a specific and privileged sample of network-building organisations as they are mostly well established and adequately funded for their work. However, reaching nation-wide or international scale and influence has also required (and still requires) each of them to build strategic partnerships, create proof and evidence for a model to work, and attract other resources, such as political will and influence. When La main à la pâte started its Houses for Science network in 2014, its focus was to bring one university together with the local directorate (or rectorate) of national education services which implements in the academy the educational policy defined at the national level. Funding was mainly ensured by a national call for projects, supplemented by in-kind contributions from the Universities in the form of staff. After the phase of establishment of the first half-dozen Houses for Science, and despite the end of the initial funding, the network has widened and more than tripled in size, to cover most of the regions, henceforth of the country, eventually becoming France’s largest non-governmental teachers’ training organisation in the domain of science education. This is because more universities and rectorates had been inspired by the first Houses and aimed at bringing the same model in their region. Besides the in-kind contributions assured by the universities, the network now relies on local sponsors and on a limited national funding assured by La main à la pâte, via national sponsors. Likewise, Stiftung Kinder forschen gained significant growth in their reach through its partnership with the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Now they are working with well over 500 trainers and 200 partners to reach schools and kindergartens across the country with their continuing professional development programme. This case also highlights another key component regarding resources and funding: the opportunity to receive funds for network-work by members and/or partners of that network. The resources contributed by the network partners amount to six million euros per year and can be read as a tangible success of joint collaboration in the Stiftung Kinder forschen initiative. Similarly, the LUMA Centre Finland is co-funded by the government and the research universities involved on an equal basis. This enabled the network to become very effective in developing and sharing actions, materials, and educational LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 80 support throughout the whole country. Moreover, creating a common strategy and shared decision-making responsibilities created trust and cooperation that benefitted all centres – small and big – in the same way by sharing resources, knowledge, and activities. In the last decade, its early successes in one university led to eventually anchoring it as part of Finland’s educational strategy with presence on every national university campus. The Smithsonian Science Education Center networking activities are fully funded by gifts and grants. These funds support programming and are shared with network members through both monetary (e.g., honorarium for mentors; travel support) and non-monetary (e.g., free professional development; free attendance at convenings; free STEM curriculum) resources. While it is challenging to scale a movement network like LASER through term-limited gifts and grants, LASER’s demonstrated success through rigorous evaluations have led to sustainably securing funding. OCE reflects on the shift that was possible in their network’s engagement as they switched from voluntary to a compensated role in the network. At the same time, neither of the IDoS peers – in their network practice – acts as a traditional funder, and still maintains a highly operational approach and presence “on the ground” and inside their networks. II.3 Motivation and commitment Networks are dependent on connections and the exchange of value such as competency, knowledge, or resources (Plastrik, Taylor & Cleveland, 2014). A critical component is that of “network weaving” on personal level and that of moving a network from “scattered fragments” over “hub and spoke” and “multi-hub” to potentially “core and periphery” structures, indicating that connected actors and type of connections evolve as networks mature and pursue more impact (Holley, 2012). To develop connections within a network, it is essential to align both personal and institutional intents and agendas with the network’s goals. This alignment is necessary to avoid inherent conflicts that could undermine the required “weaving”. It is also critical to maintain this alignment and commitment over time. All networks in this sample of IDoS peers have directly or indirectly built a relatively large community of members as well as multipliers; yet they still had to overcome key challenges related to the commitment and motivation of their networks in their developments. Looking back at the first steps taken by OCE, their process was initially considered not inclusive enough and feedback from invited co- LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 81 creators noted that the network objectives, values, and ideas were too centrally defined by OCE themselves. This was only overcome by granting more autonomy and finding a balance of addressing collective and individual to both shape the network and motivate each participating partner. While the starting phase is particularly “sensitive” to such tensions, it remains one of the most challenging tasks to create and maintain such trustworthy atmosphere for collaboration and cocreation, as the Smithsonian Science Education Center’s LASER network’s creators note and reflect on their experience. Additionally, learned cultural norms or contextual factors play an important role, e.g., all networks operate in an educational system that is defined especially by distinct disciplines of teaching and assumed roles of educators, teachers, authorities (see also the reflections shared in point II.5). However, a flatter, more collaborative approach of networks is needed to break through the purely professional and to appeal to the personal level of its participants. Only then can the desired form of engagement be reached, as also LUMA reflects on their journey of seeking to build collaborations where previously silo mindsets prevailed. When first starting the initiative, LUMA was confronted with strong resistance to working together – or even connecting – with departments of other disciplines or at other universities. After close to two years of intense advocating and concrete offers to experience this new form of working together, LUMA could finally see a significant difference in the way information was more freely shared and active voices brought into the conversation. This lesson is not to be underestimated: Networks are personal and consist of people representing the network member organisations. Any development or change will thus require ensuring inclusive participation at all stages as well as to create a feeling of ownership and trust as the core components of a member’s network experience. The new IDoS peer network particularly builds on this factor: While the intention is to connect leading educational field developers which includes a formal declaration of accession by each organisation, the approach is also very personal and focuses on building connections, fostering learning and developing trustingrelations for and between the relevant people inside the participating organisations. Feeling invited as individual in addition to participating as an employee is a key experience and remains a core promise of this learning network. Looking at the risks stemming from this, Plastrik et al. (2014) identifies domination, exclusion, and lack of succession as the most common challenges for LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 82 networks. Particularly as a funder and founder of a network it is essential to navigate the risks of cutting off, silencing, or failing to develop supportive conditions for more voices, broader engagement, as well as inclusive decision-making in the network. Engaging in a network will ask everyone for a level of trust and letting go of individual control for the better functioning of the network as a whole. Here, matters of strategy and stewardship (as outlined in point II.1) and consideration of motivation and commitment strongly interrelate. This can be seen at the most recent of the sampled networks, Siemens Stiftung’s STEMplus Territories, where the design directive for local communities was very limited and it was actively requested to bring in own needs and expectations with regards to topics in focus and stakeholders to invite. Besides setting the agenda, giving recognition is another strategy that can be pursued to increase and maintain high level of motivation. Almost all networks considered for this paper co-create key components of their offerings with other network members (and credit these as such), be it learning materials or network meeting formats. For example, before addressing any new problem of practice, the Smithsonian Science Education Center forms Advisory Committees who include diverse members representing a variety of needs, strengths, geographies, and expertise related to the problem of practice being addressed (see: https://ssec.si.edu/advisory-committees), which ensures inclusive participation of the network members to create ownership and trust. For their engagement and seeking new opportunities, network members receive positive reactions, thus feeling even more motivated in return. A strong indicator for the level of commitment can be found when measuring the willingness of network members to give and receive support to or from another member as Vandor, Leitner & Millner (2020) have shown in a recent network evaluation. Comparing the hours of peer support provided with the resources invested in coordinating the network, the former often outweighs the latter by a significant factor, e.g., seven-fold more time invested as peer-resource than staffed as dedicated coordination capacity. II.4 Measurement, evaluation, accountability, and learning (MEAL) It is an unfortunate yet regular observation that many network organisers are still insufficiently prepared to articulate and support the achieved impact with evidence that goes beyond anecdotes (Plastrik et al., 2014) This is relevant for both staying in LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 83 the known of the results (i.e. the actor-level and outcome-level perspectives), the processes by which they are achieved as well as the health, sustainability, and development of the network and its members altogether. As relatively mature sample of network organisations and with even stronger scientific ties and standards, IDoS peers do have contributions to make, however. In summary, the following indicators and findings proved to be most helpful in tracking the success and development of a network over time, and with this have served as guidance for the network stewards and facilitated adequate reporting to its sponsors: • “A medium scale RCT-study has helped focusing on potential limits of professional development actions, especially in relationship with transfer and application to the classroom. A national funding of the National Research Agency has made it possible to set up an evaluation system under ecological conditions (160 teachers trained in the project) by means of a randomised controlled experiment (of a total duration of four years, two of which occupied by the training), coupled with a fine qualitative observation approach. Four Houses for science have been implied in the study, at the very moment of the installation of the Houses for science network. In addition to the Houses for science, the RCT study has mobilised three different research laboratories in France, specialising respectively in econometry, cognitive science and didactics. The RCT has not produced clear indications for the improvement of the training actions, nor has it reduced the necessity of other forms of evaluation, such as the continuous assessment of progress and of achievement of objectives (project evaluation), or quality assurance. Presently, La main à la pâte is developing new tools and strategies for the evaluation of effects and impact on its beneficiaries. The aim of the new tools is to gather clear indications for improvement, in relatively short time. In addition to which, evidence monitoring has been strengthened to build (and share within the network) a strong evidence base for the production of resources and of training actions.” (La main à la pâte) • “We collected evidence on LASER’s efficacy through a large-scale randomised control-trial (RCT) study of 60,000 students in 124 schools across three statelevel networks with 9000 students followed longitudinally over three years and assessed the impact of LASER on student achievement and teachers’ professional learning (What Works Clearinghouse, 2021). During this time, we LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 90 Table 3. Overview of all example networks and their success factors Peer organisation Network type(s) Main focus of the network Structure (A) centralised (B) decentralised (C) distributed structures Success factors of the network Stiftung Kinder forschen (Little Scientists Foundation) Scale Network Disseminating the foundation’s continuing professional development programme in the field of STEM Education for Sustainable Development for pedagogical staff at early childhood education and care centres, afterschool centres, and primary schools – nationwide (Germany). Thus, supporting the foundation in its mission to strengthen children aged 3 to 10 for the future. Impact orientation, needs analysis and researchbased actions for target group-specific offer development and dissemination A/C • Strong strategic focus based on established MEALpractice • The foundations’ nationwide network system of locally engaged partners allows a high reach of its educational offers through multiplication • Durable and reliable investment of human and financial resources of the foundation and the (network) partners • Good networking with politics and society ensures the needed political support Siemens Stiftung Resilience Network Providing continuing education opportunities for educators and highquality teaching and learning materials, making a genuine, concrete contribution to high-quality STEM lessons that are accessible to everyone along the entire education chain. International networks that bring together different countries and disciplines, harnessing innovative ideas on a global scale. B • Consideration of existing networks and partnerships • Actors with common goals • Impact orientation and concrete activities • Structured coordination and establishment of working groups • Secured resources raised by international, national, and local actors • Continuous outward communication for networking and fundraising • Consideration and identification of/with local context LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 91 Smithsonian Science Education Center Movement Network Transforming K-12 education through science in collaboration with communities across the globe. Network teams attend leadership development institutes to plan the implementation of inquiry-based, hands-on, and digital instructional materials (innovation); promote diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion in STEM (inclusion); and support STEM Education for Sustainable Development (sustainability). Network teams receive support for key aspects of implementation such as professional development for teachers, access to curriculum and instructional materials, collaboration with community members, and research and scholarship. C • Empowering schools, districts, state education agencies, and ministries of education to: • Identify and share science education problems of practice • Develop and implement action plans to address these problems • Create a shared vision for instructional improvement • Set shortand long-term goals • Form partnerships, build coalitions to scale and sustain transformations in science education Luma Centre Finland Scale Network Inspiring and motivating children and youth into STEM subjects through the latest methods and activities of science and technology education. Supporting the lifelong learning of teachers working on all levels of education from early childhood to universities. C • Enforce common strategy, goals, management, and communications for network activities • Establish collaborative network of research universities for research-based actions. • Adopt local centres to regional priorities and expertise • Nurture cross-centre activities and trust for co-creation, collaboration and shared expertise and materials • Striving for strong national and international web of networks between researchers, teachers, policy makers and stakeholders for learning and practise • Using transparent assessment procedures for effective development and improvement Fondation La Main à la Pate Scale Network Bringing together teaching and scientific communities to improve the quality of science education in primary and middle schools in France. A • Division of work. Specialisation of La Main à la pâte National Centre in the provision of training for trainers and teachers via on-line platform, specialisation of the networks in the provision of in-presence training, in close connection with local needs and opportunities. • Mutualisation of resources, co-creation of on-line training contents and exploitation of on-line training contents in the framework of local in-presence or hybrid training sessions LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 92 Office for Climate Education Scale Network and Action Network Implementing quality climate change education (with a focus on developing countries) by bridging the gap between science and pedagogy and providing teachers, teachers trainers and policy officers with pedagogical tools, professional development, and support. A • Placing coordinative functions closer to the communities that were intended to be involved. • Providing a structure to identify, share, and scale-up successful actions at a regional scale. • Providing compensation for key roles in the network • A thorough and transparent process for resource production (internationally tested, validated by experts). IDoS peer network Learning Network Network of cooperating organisations with a similar focus of working internationally, learning from one another, and sharing lessons learned in/with the field of early STEM Education for Sustainable Development B • United group of peers selected according to specific criteria as a strong basis for collaboration and co-creation (all are multipliers and field-developers) • Central coordination by “architects” as backbone organisation (setting strategic focus and coordinating actions) • Commitment and ownership from all peers (motivation and capacity to contribute to the network) • Regular working meetings (virtual and in presence) LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 93 Acknowledgements We appreciate the following persons who contributed examples and case studies or reviewed this paper: Prof Dr Maija Aksela, Director of National LUMA Centre Finland, Faculty of Science, University of Helsinki, Finland Nathalie Bauer, Consultant Research & Development, Stiftung Kinder forschen, Germany Prof Dr Ilan Chabay, Research Institute for Sustainability Helmholtz Centre Potsdam (RIFS) Germany (Formerly Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies); Co-Director, KLASICA 2.0: Knowledge, Learning, and Societal Change International Research Alliance Jagori Dhar, Editor, Siemens Stiftung, Germany Lisa Gerloff, Consultant Research & Development, Stiftung Kinder forschen, Germany Prof Dr Nina Kolleck, Professor of Civic Education and Educational Systems, University of Leipzig, Germany Alexander Ruf, Consultant for regional networks, Stiftung Kinder forschen, Germany References Aksela, M. (2019). Towards student-centred solutions and pedagogical innovation in science education through co-design approach within design-based research. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 7(3), 113-139. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.7.3.421 Baran, P. (1964). On Distributed Communications Networks. IEEE Transactions on Communications Systems, 12(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCOM.1964.1088883 Chabay, I. (2022). Reconciling Risk, Resilience and Sustainability: Learning from Narratives. In M. Shimizu (Ed.), A Resilience Approach to Acceleration of Sustainability Development Goals (pp. 43-57). Singapore: Springer. Ehrlichman, D. (2021). Impact networks. Oakland, CA, USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Fadel, C., Bialik, M., & Trilling, B. (2017). Die vier Dimensionen der Bildung: Was Schülerinnen und Schüler im 21. Jahrhundert lernen müssen (J. Muuß-Merholz, Trans.). Verlag ZLL21 e.V. (Original work published 2012). Freeman, B., Marginson, S., & Tyler, R. (2019). An International View of STEM Education. In A. Sahin & M. Schroeder (Eds.), Myths and thruths: What has years of K-12 STEM educatoin research taught us? (pp. 350-363). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Brill. Gibson, H. (2021). From Ideas to Action: Transforming Learning to Inspire Action on Critical Global Issues. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press. Available: https://doi.org/10.5479/si.15173715.v1 Gibson, H., Short, M. E., & O’Donnell, C. (2023). Data, discourse, and development: Building a sustainable world through education and science communication. Frontiers in Communication, 8. Available: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.981988. Hearn, S., & Mendizabal, E. (2011). Not everything that connects is a network (Background paper). London: Overseas Development Institute. Holley, J. (2012). Network Weaver Handbook: A Guide to Transformational Networks. Network Weaver Publishing. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 94 Kolleck, N. (2012). Vernetzt für den Wandel. Netzwerke im Bereich Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung unter der Lupe. In: K. Schwippert, S. Kulin, K. Frank (Eds.), Soziale Netzwerkanalyse und ihr Beitrag zur sozialwissenschaftlichen Forschung, Theorie – Praxis – Methoden (pp. 249-267). Münster: Waxmann. Kolleck, N., Bormann, I., de Haan, G., Kulin, S., & Schwippert, K. (2016) (Eds.): Traditionen, Zukünfte und Wandel in Bildungsnetzwerken. Münster: Waxmann Lee, H. (2022). Building Networks & Enhancing Diversity in the K-12 STEM Teaching Workforce. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Science Education Center. https://ssec.si.edu/includessourcebook Levine, C. (2015). Forms: Whole, Rhythm, Hierarchy, Network. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press. Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, J. E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 116. London in Monitor Institute (2015). Engage: How Funders Can Support and Leverage Networks for Social Impact. https://engage.rockefellerfoundation.org (accessed 12 October 2022). O’Donnell, C. (2018). Science education, identity, and civic engagement: Empowering youth through the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In A. Rold (Ed.), G7: The Executive Talk Series Global Briefing Report (pp. 108-116). Carlevoix, Canada: Diplomatic Courier. Available: https://digital.thecatcompanyinc.com/g7magazine/june-2018/science-education-identitycivic-engagement/ O’Donnell, C., & Day, K. J. (2022). Teaching About Real-World, Transdisciplinary Problems and Phenomena through Convergence Education. Smithsonian Magazine. Available: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/blogs/smithsonian-education/2022/07/25/teachingabout-real-world-transdisciplinary-problems-and-phenomena-through-convergenceeducation/ O’Donnell, C. L., D’Amico, A., Zoblotsky, T., & Alberg, M. (2017). Results of the validation study of the Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER) model. Theories and Fundamentals of Inquiry Based Science Teaching. Mexico City, Mexico: Innovation in Science Education (INNOVEC; https://ssec.si.edu/innovec_mexico_laser-success-story). Available: http://innovec.org.mx/home/images/7-antologia_v2_digital-min.pdf OECD (2020). Back to the Future of Education: Four OECD Scenarios for Schooling, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. Pahnke, J., O’Donnell, C., & Bascopé, M. (2019). Using Science to Do Social Good: STEM Education for Sustainable Development. Position paper developed in preparation for the second “International Dialogue on STEM Education” (IDoS) in Berlin, December 5–6, 2019. Available: https://www.haus-der-kleinen-forscher.de/en/international-dialogue-on-stemeducation/idos2019/position-paper Partnership Brokers Association (PBA) (2019) (Eds.). Brokering Better Partnerships. By Investing in the Partnering Process (Handbook) (2nd ed.). London: Partnership Brokers Association. Plastrik, P., Taylor, M. and Cleveland, J. (2014). Connecting to change the world. Washington, USA: Island Press. Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organization. Research in Organizational Behaviour 12, 295-336. Reiss, K., & Filtzinger, B. (2023). STEMplus: The Foundation of an Education in the 21st Century. Siemens Stiftung. Rogers, P. (2014). Theory of Change, Methodological Briefs: Impact Evaluation 2. Florence: UNICEF Office of Research. LUNDELL ET AL. (2023) 95 Shumate, M., & Cooper, K. R. (2022). Networks for social impact. New York: Oxford University Press. Slaughter, A.-M. (2017). The chessboard and the web: Strategies of connection in a networked world. USA: Yale University Press. Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76. Stiftung Haus der kleinen Forscher (2022). Monitoring Report 2020/2021 of „Haus der kleinen Forscher“ Foundation. Berlin: Stiftung Haus der kleinen Forscher. Available: https://www.haus-der-kleinen-forscher.de/de/wissenschaftliche-begleitung/ergebnissepublikationen/monitoring-berichte United Nations General Assembly (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld. Publication (accessed 02 February 2018). Vandor, P., Leitner, L., & Millner, R. (2020). Impact-oriented networks in the context of philanthropy: an evaluation of the Bosch Alumni Network. Final Report. Vienna: Social Entrepreneurship Center, Vienna University of Economics and Business. Available: https://www.iac-berlin.org/resources/how-to-measure-the-success-of-impact-orientednetworks Vandor, P., Leitner, L., Millner, R., & Hansen, H. (2019). Addressing Grand Challenges Collectively: A Brief Introduction to Impact-Oriented Networks. Vienna: Social Entrepreneurship Center, Vienna University of Economics and Business. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3472979 What Works Clearinghouse (2021). Leadership and Assistance for Science Education Reform (LASER): Intervention Brief Primary Science Topic Area. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation at the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). Available: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/InterventionReports/WWC_LASER_IR-brief.pdf