Over the past decade, Convergence Research has increasingly gained prominence as a research, development, and innovation (RDI) strategy to address grand societal challenges. However, a dearth of research-based evidence is available to aid researchers, research teams, and institutions with navigating the complexities attendant to the specifics of Convergence Research. This paper presents a multilevel research agenda that accounts for an integral understanding of Convergence Research as a complex adaptive system. Furthermore, by developing a framework that accounts for ancillary, yet essential, systems associated with Convergence Research, we enrich the agenda with a literature-steeped discussion that considers how systems-based practices of collaboration, inquiry, and context interact with the processes and products of Convergence Research. Finally, we synthesize and apply insights from the reviewed literature by providing paths for empirical exploration emphasizing systems-based practices. In so doing, we delineate an extended boundary for a research stream that both clarifies and enlarges our understanding of Convergence Research as a ‘system-of-systems’.

The article explores the effect of the engagement of university science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) faculty in the Math and Science Partnership program. The findings suggest that K-12 teachers benefited from the engagement in terms of improved approaches to teaching and learning, increased knowledge of subject matter content, and increased confidence. STEM faculty benefited from new ideas about teaching and learning, insights into research, more knowledge of the K-12 education system, and a broader understanding of education overall. Student achievement also improved, although direct attribution to faculty involvement is somewhat unclear. Furthermore, in the short run at least, it appears that few benefits extend beyond those faculty who are direct participants, and few systemic changes have been made in institutions of higher education systems.

Formal programs that provide research experiences for teachers (RET) have been in existence for more than 20 years. Currently there are more than 70 formalized Scientific Work Experiences Programs for Teachers (SWEPTs) nationwide. The underlying assumption of most RETs is that these intensive summer work immersion experiences, coupled with appropriate follow-up activities during the school year, expand teachers’ professional skills and networks, and thereby improve the performance of their students. Many SWEPTs have collected anecdotal evidence indicating their program’s positive impact on teachers. Missing from all SWEPT evaluations is quantitative evidence that teacher participation in these programs affects student interest and performance in the subject taught by the SWEPT teacher. As professional evaluators attest, it is difficult to differentiate the roles of teachers and teaching practices in changing student academic interest and performance from other factors (e.g., curriculum, school administration, non-random assignment of students, etc.). This study controls for many of these factors by comparing interest and achievement of students in classes of SWEPT teachers with students in classes of comparison teachers in the same school and teaching the same subject. The study’s longitudinal design is commensurate with the philosophy and practices of the participating SWEPTs.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes This research is being supported by funding from the Research, Evaluation and Technical Assistance grant under the National Science Foundations's Math and Science Partnership program. We wish to acknowledge four other Westat researchers on this project: Joan Michie, John Wells, Atsushi Miyaka, and Glenn Nyre, as well as 10 STEM site visitors, and five advisory panel members.

Focus groups are widely used in qualitative research. Recently, focus groups that are held online have become increasingly popular despite the objection by some researchers that the Internet is a poor medium for focus group research. The present study was conducted to reveal differences in the characteristics of focus group discussions in the online and face-to-face formats. Participants in 4 online focus groups and 4 face-to-face focus groups discussed their opinions about several health-related Web sites. Statistical analysis of the transcripts suggested that online participants tended to contribute shorter comments and were more likely to say just a few words of agreement. In the online focus groups, participation levels tended to be more uniform; in the face-to-face groups, some participants tended to contribute a disproportionately large number of words, whereas other participants were relatively silent. The results suggest different roles for online and face-to-face focus groups in qualitative research.

a summary of the study and itsfindings presented in approximately one-half apage of text.. An Executive Summary---a summary which maybe as long as four pages that provides anoverview of the evaluation, its findings, andimplications. Sometimes the Executive Summaryalso serves an a non-technical digest of theevaluation report.How Do You Develop an Evaluation Report?Although we usually think about report writing as thelast step in an evaluation study, agood deal of thework...

Acknowledgments his report was drafted from comments,written or submitted by the chairs of working groups. Larry Suter organized the conference and edited the final version of the report. Joy Frechtling of Westat was instrumental in arranging for the workshop,and preparing a first draft from,the submitted materials. Brian Kleiner of Westat drafted the description of existing research guidelines. Special efforts