NASA Advisory Council Science, Technology, 

Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) 

Engagement Committee 

Notes 

October 29, 2019 

12:00 noon – 4:30 pm ET 

VIRTUAL MEETING 

STEM Engagement Committee Members 

Dial-in Participants: Norman Fortenberry, Michael Lach, Ray Mellado, Darryl Williams, Daniel 

Dumbacher, Acting Chair 

Not Participating: Cristin Dorgelo, Carl Person, Aimee Kennedy, Chair 

Others Participating: 

Beverly Girten (Executive Secretary), Michael Kincaid, Kris Brown, Diane DeTroye, NASA HQ 

Office of STEM Engagement; Rob LaSalvia, Anne Gooding, Glenn Research Center 

Opening Comments 

Dr. Beverly Girten, Committee Executive Secretary welcomed everyone and noted the meeting 

is a virtual meeting taking place in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). 

Mr. Dumbacher offered introductory comments noting it is imperative of the STEM 

Engagement Committee to do everything possible to help get the next generation prepared for 

the future. NASA is in a unique position to inspire generations to come. Members then 

introduced themselves. 

National STEM Updates 

Federal Coordination (FC) in STEM 

Mr. Kincaid reviewed the Federal STEM Education Strategic Five-Year Plan and introduced the 

Federal Coordination in STEM Education Task Force (FC-STEM) topic. FC-STEM is chaired by 

Mike Kincaid, NASA Associate Administrator for STEM Engagement and Karen Marrongelle, 

National Science Foundation Assistant Director for Education and Human Resources. Mr. 

Kincaid reviewed the three objectives from the federal strategic plan that NASA selected to 

support: 1.) Foster STEM ecosystems that unite communities; 2.) Increase work-based learning 

and training through educator-employer partnerships; and 3.) Encourage transdisciplinary 

learning. While NASA may support other strategic objectives, they are not as heavily invested in 

them. NASA has resources committed and people identified to support the chosen objectives. 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

1
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) Updates 

Overview/Budget/Matching Investments/Congress/Artemis 

Mr. Kincaid provided an update on the evolution of the Office of STEM Engagement and 

discussed NASA’s contribution to America’s STEM ecosystem. NASA STEM Engagement fits 

within the cross section of: NASA and aerospace workforce needs; NASA mission needs; 

students and educational institutions; and United States STEM challenges. NASA’s mission 

allows NASA to play a unique role that other agencies cannot. Mr. Kincaid highlighted NASA’s 

alignment with the Office of Science Technology Policy and the Office of Management and 

Budget priorities, specifically the priority for space exploration and commercialization. The 

priority cross-cutting action to support space exploration and commercialization is to build and 

leverage a diverse and highly skilled American workforce. The NASA STEM Engagement strategy 

focus area which supports this action is focus area two, to build a diverse future STEM 

workforce. 

Mission Support Future Architecture Program (MAP) and Sphere 1 Activities 

Connecting Nation’s STEM to NASA’s Mission 

Ms. Kris Brown reviewed the process for how the Office of STEM Engagement is driving agency 

work in STEM Engagement to align with NASA’s three focus areas for STEM engagement and 

drive outcomes. Office of STEM Engagement defines the Agency work in STEM engagement for 

this fiscal year. This includes what is planned within the Office of STEM Engagement program 

($110M) and the remainder of what the Agency is doing in STEM engagement, which falls 

mostly within the realm of the Mission Directorates. 

Ms. Brown then discussed the drivers of and contributions to the Agency STEM Engagement 

portfolio. Mission Directorates strategically select a portion of their work to engage students. 

They then engage STEM practitioners to engage students. That has been happening across the 

Agency over many years. 

The Office of STEM Engagement also engages students in NASA’s work. These efforts are pulled 

together to comprises the NASA STEM Engagement Portfolio. Office of STEM Engagement 

piloted an annual planning cycle in FY 2019 that will go forward FY 2020. The planning cycle 

looks at what works for students as a way to develop a frame for the portfolio to engage 

students in NASA’s work. 

Office of STEM Engagement looked at a snapshot of 94 discrete STEM Engagement activities 

across the Agency. Forty-three (43) were from the Office of STEM Engagement and most of the 

remainder were from Mission Directorates. Office of STEM Engagement conducted a 

comprehensive analysis of these activities for alignment with STEM Engagement focus areas 

and strategic objectives and identification. STEM Engagement also identified the beneficiary 

group for each activity. Activities that reached students were included in the analysis. Activities 

that leaned more toward public engagement were not included. These 94 activities were then 

prioritized according to four design principles and criteria. Through proposal and deliberation 

with the STEM Engagement Council, five activities were identified as Sphere 1 activities for FY 

2020. These are: Artemis STEM challenges; International Space Station 20th Anniversary; 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Commercial Crew; Earth Day; and Mars 2020. Sphere 1 activities are based on high level Agency 

priorities and will drive high priority activities. Office of STEM Engagement will leverage the 

attention placed on NASA priorities to reach students. 

Mr. Dan Dumbacher noted that the five Sphere 1 activities did not include Aeronautics 

Research Mission Directorate content. Ms. Brown noted no aeronautics activities were brought 

forward for Sphere 1. While Office of STEM Engagement strives to be equitable across Mission 

Directorates each year, no aeronautics activities with a high level of magnitude were brought 

forward. Not every Mission Directorate will be highlighted each year but will be across years. 

Mr. Kincaid then discussed Sphere 1 success criteria: increased diversity of student and 

institution participation; movement along the continuum of the design principles; documented 

improvements and/or resulting outcomes; defined metrics for each activity; and STEM 

Engagement content is consistent and streamlined. 

Dr. Norman Fortenberry asked if STEM Engagement is considering partnership with other 

organizations or universities to tie students into some their research. Mr. Kincaid noted they 

are open to many possibilities. The STEM Engagement Council is coming together for one and a 

half days and will be discussing how to handle the Sphere 1 activities. There is a strong 

potential for partnerships. 

Mr. Kincaid also noted that the Sphere 1 activities are not Office of STEM Engagement 

investments. For example, the Artemis challenges are largely funded by the Human Exploration 

and Operations Mission Directorate. 

Mr. Kincaid noted they are looking for ways to better involve Mission Directorates in Space 

Grant. Space Grant is the largest part of the STEM Engagement portfolio. Office of STEM 

Engagement will be looking at cost-sharing opportunities, ways to tap into the vast network of 

Space Grant partners, and how to involve Space Grant in the Artemis STEM Challenges. Space 

Grants are on college campuses and can provide insight on how to attract students. Office of 

STEM Engagement continues to look for ways that to enable the mission. 

Mr. Dumbacher asked how the portfolio links to the budget. Mr. Kincaid responded that a 

previous complaint from other federal offices was that Office of STEM Engagement could not 

demonstrate the progress or success of what they were doing. Since then, Office of STEM 

Engagement has been intentional in showing how activities link to the mission. During the last 

NASA Advisory Council (NAC) meeting Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate 

and the Office of STEM Engagement looked at how the mission directorate efforts 

fit with STEM Engagement. Mr. Kincaid will be meeting with the NAC Human Exploration and 

Operations Committee to show linkages between the two communities and build advocacy for 

the budget. 

Dr. Darryl Williams, referencing the drivers and contributions slide, asked about the feedback 

from research and evaluation. Dr. Williams suggested while there is a feedback from the 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

portfolio to the mission goals, there should also be a feedback to the STEM Engagement goals 

and requirements. Ms. Brown responded they welcome feedback on the strategy and 

acknowledged the feedback to STEM Engagement makes sense. Mr. Kincaid added they have 

received positive comments from Office of Management Budget on their evaluation process. 

Mr. Ray Mellado commented that he is looking at it from the perspective of a high school or 

college student looking for guidance on careers that will be developing in the next five to ten 

years that will relate to NASA and NASA alone. That would create interest among teacher and 

professors. 

Ms. Brown added the strategy is to think in partnership with industry partners and look at 

workforce needs. Partnership with industry helps identify what are the needs in the industry 

and what types of experiences NASA can offer students to bring them into the pipeline. 

Mr. Mellado commented teachers from the Great Minds in STEM conference were trying to 

visualize where this technology is going to with NASA leading us into space. Mr. Kincaid noted 

they are looking at early career professionals to talk about what they are doing to contribute to 

Artemis and act as role models for students. 

National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education 

Mr. Rob LaSalvia reviewed the findings of the 2018 National Survey of Science and Mathematics 

Education released by Horizon Research. This report is the sixth in a series funded by the 

National Science Foundation. The survey findings are provided in a comprehensive report with 

data and tables on K-12 science and math education across the country. The 2018 survey added 

computer science. Selected findings presented by Mr. LaSalvia address teacher preparedness, 

access to opportunity, instructional dosage, use of effective practices, and experience. 

Mr. Dumbacher asked where to get a copy of the report. The report is found here: 

http://horizon-research.com/NSSME/2018-nssme/research-products/reports 

STEM Partnerships/Apollo 50th Anniversary/Next Gen STEM 

Dr. Bev Girten provided an overview of STEM Engagement Space Act Agreement partnerships 

across the Agency and highlighted notable partnership achievements in FY2019 including 

partnerships with Microsoft, Department of Education, Tynker, Peanuts Worldwide and 

Challenger Center. She also showed how partnership activities fit into the overall Office of 

STEM Engagement strategy. 

Ms. Diane DeTroye reviewed the budget line item for NextGen STEM which Includes investment 

in three Next Gen STEM pilot themes (Artemis, X-59 Quest Low Boom Flight Demonstration, 

Commercial Crew), museums and the Texas state cooperative agreement for educator 

professional development. In 2018-2019 Next Gen STEM emphasized architecture—starting 

with the mission and how it reaches the beneficiary. They are engaging middle school students 

in mission content through the Next Gen STEM themes. She also noted a large investment in 

aeronautics through the X59 Quest activities. Activities are developed through the STEM 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

4
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Engagement strategy design principles. The first year is under development and they look to 

2020 to refine product and enable broader dissemination. Ms. DeTroye then highlighted how 

Next Gen STEM ties back to the Sphere 1 activities and highlighted activities from the Apollo 

50th celebration. Ms. DeTroye highlighted the Microsoft partnership on Hacking STEM Lessons 

which began 2018. The lesson plans are aligned to standards and present concepts and 

challenges associated with spaceflight. Using the Astrosocks challenge as an example, Ms. 

DeTroye illustrated how students are engaged in solving a Mission Directorate problem. 

Astronauts develop callouses on top of their feet as they lock into footholds. Astrosocks is an 

engineering design activity that challenges students to help find a solution to this problem. 

Ms. DeTroye discussed the Peanuts Worldwide partnership, where NASA verified STEM lessons, 

and an upcoming partnership with Apple TV, where NASA will serve as a subject matter expert 

to ensure correct representation of NASA content. 

Next Gen STEM conducted an expert review panel in July 2019 on the pilot themes. The 

emphasis was on focusing on the NASA work while meeting the educational needs. Next Gen 

STEM is working through the recommendations for improvement. There is a tension between 

short activities that can be quickly used in the classroom with longer, problem based learning 

activities. They completed the evaluation of the pilot themes and presented them in a multiple 

case study report. 

Mr. Dumbacher asked if there are teachers on staff that have been helping with this work. Ms. 

DeTroye noted that they have former classroom educators on the Paragon Tech contract. 

Sparking Interest in STEM 

Dr. Anne Gooding provided an update on the Sparking an Interest in STEM study undertaken by 

Glenn Research Center. This study was a result of an action from a previous NAC STEM 

Engagement Committee meeting after the NASA Administrator commented on the importance 

of NASA ‘sparking student interest in STEM’. Dr. Gooding reported they convened a Sparking 

Interest in STEM panel at NASA HQ and conducted a literature review and synthesized the 

outcomes into a comprehensive report. Dr. Gooding shared four themes that guided the expert 

panel review: sparking STEM interest; NASA’s role in sparking STEM interest; NASA’s STEM 

Engagement strategy; and engaging diverse students in STEM. Panelists agreed NASA should 

use brand recognition to provide STEM opportunities. After a detailed summary of the findings 

and a comparison of the expert panel and literature review, Dr. Gooding indicated the study 

reaffirmed three key focus areas in NASA’s STEM Engagement strategy: the importance of 

diversity; the benefit of role models and mentors; and the need to engage customers in product 

and activity development. The report also highlighted three areas for NASA to continue 

discussing before final determinations are made. The Glenn team highlighted four suggested 

items to focus on and asked the committee for input on those four items. Dr. Gooding also 

noted that the expert panel disagreed on NASA’s role in sustaining STEM interest. Some 

panelists felt NASA should have a direct role, whereas others felt NASA should serve as a 

facilitator to collaborators. Mr. Mellado commented that it does not have to be an either or, 

but that NASA’s role could be both. 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

5
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Gooding asked the committee for feedback on three questions. The first question is “Of the 

complete list of items for consideration, which do you see as those we may want to focus on?” 

Dr. Williams asked if the three objectives NASA STEM Engagement selected from the five-year 

Federal strategic plan are the ones that should be highlighted on the list. That is, use the three 

objectives as the lens or filter by which the three items on the list are chosen. Dr. Lach and Dr. 

Fortenberry agreed with that approach. The committee noted that defining metrics to identify 

and measure progress on each of the items was not included and questioned how NASA STEM 

Engagement knows they are reaching the right people. Dr. Gooding responded that the Glenn 

group concluded that they can’t measure anything until they know what they are measuring 

which is why item 1, “NASA should continue to refine the definition of sparking STEM interest in 

terms of evidence-based characteristics within the context of NASA STEM Engagement,” was 

highlighted. The committee noted the metrics ought to tie back to objectives. Mr. Kincaid then 

commented that the federal five-year plan contains another aspect for transparency and 

accountability that all agencies were to look at. In essence NASA has four objectives to address. 

The committee also noted that some items on the list could be collapsed down and that others 

build on each other. Some actions must be completed before others could be undertaken. 

Dr. Gooding then presented the second question, “Where do you see alignment between the 

presented items for consideration and your own experiences or observations?” Mr. Dumbacher 

noted the findings from the expert panel and literature review is consistent with what is 

observed in the professional society world. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 

(AIAA) has a foundation board that asked them to impact one million students per year. AIAA is 

working to figure out what impact means and how to develop the metrics. Dr. Fortenberry 

noted that to him the list of items for consideration are not independent, for example, item 

eight is a subset of item two. There are dependencies between some of the items. Dr. Gooding 

confirmed there are overlaps between some of the items. Dr. Gooding then presented the 

third question for feedback: “What are your thoughts on NASA’s role related to the 

sustainment of spark?” Mr. Dumbacher stated that input from corporate members of 

professional organizations is to emphasize academic community and the interdisciplinary and 

transdisciplinary nature of engineering problems. We need to work harder to get out of 

traditional engineering stovepipes and into transdisciplinary approaches. Dr. Williams noted 

NASA is uniquely positioned to facilitate that kind of work and that NASA should lean into that 

opportunity. Mr. LaSalvia confirmed the expert panel had offered the same perspective. 

Discuss/Finalize Findings and Recommendations 

The STEM Engagement Committee (Committee) continued discussions and agreed upon one 

recommendation and two findings: 

Recommendation 1: STEM Integration Across Agency 

The Committee greatly appreciates how the Office of STEM Engagement (OSTEM) is 

working to increase understanding among Mission Directorates and Centers via the 

STEM Engagement Council. The Committee also recognizes the challenges of this effort 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

6
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the additional work necessary to identify potential improvements. 

The Committee recommends additional efforts at cross fertilization and understanding 

among the NAC Committees on the STEM activities across the Agency. The Committee 

clearly sees a need for a more thorough understanding of the current goals, objectives, 

and status among the Mission Directorates and Centers concerning STEM activities and 

how these activities support the Agency meeting the goals and objectives of the Federal 

5-Year STEM Strategic Plan. 

Rationale 

• To assure NASA meets its commitments to the Federal 5-Year STEM Strategic Plan 

and efficient use of NASA / STEM resources for maximum impact toward the Federal 

5-year STEM Strategic Plan 

• Consequences of no action can drive a lower probability of NASA achieving goals of 

the Federal 5-year STEM Strategic Plan. Lack of action also results in uncoordinated 

messaging and status among the various Mission Directorates and Centers on STEM 

activities and further confusion among STEM participants and implementation staff. 

Finding 1: Study on Sparking Interest in STEM 

The Committee appreciates the work done to understand the generation and 

sustainment of “sparking” interest in STEM areas. The expert panel review and literature 

search provided valuable input to STEM Engagement Strategies. The “Spark” study 

conducted by OSTEM provides important knowledge and information for future STEM 

activities planning. The Committee looks forward to seeing the results of the action 

requesting OSTEM to develop a prioritization strategy for addressing the findings from 

the Spark study, at a future Committee meeting. 

Finding 2: STEM Alignment and Diversity 

The STEM Committee applauds the effort to develop the direct correlation of OSTEM 

objectives to the Federal 5-year STEM Strategic plan. This effort leads to an architecture 

enabling student opportunities in STEM activities based on results from the Spark study. 

As OSTEM proceeds with the on-going planning effort the Committee would like the 

opportunity to review the resulting relationship of OSTEM activities to the overall 

Federal plan and asks that OSTEM provide direct evidence demonstrating the direct 

support of the 5-year Federal STEM Strategic Plan. The Committee supports OSTEM’s 

plan to provide evidence of utilizing intentional activities and methods for assuring 

STEM activities reach the diverse, under served and underrepresented communities. 

The Committee also feels that metrics would be valuable to measure the results for 

reaching out to new communities. 

Adjourn Meeting 

Dr. Girten then adjourned the meeting. 

NAC STEM Engagement Committee Notes 

October 29, 2019 

7